Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bank of England Bill,

As amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Oyster and Mussel Fishery (Seasalter and Ham) Provisional Order Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Basingstoke, Bath, Blackpool, Bungay, Iikley, and Scarborough," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SOVIET GOVERNMENT.

Mr. LAMBERT: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there are opportunities provided by the Soviet Government for ascertaining what are the facts regarding the export of grain, the state of industry, and the present condition of the people of Russia; whether the Government is in possession of information on these points which can be published; and, if not, will steps be taken to obtain such information?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (for Mr. Ronald McNeill): Information on these subjects is published by the Soviet Government. His Majesty's Government also receive such information from other sources, but not in a form suitable for publication.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can we have any information as to what is going on in the interior of Russia?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The right hon. Gentleman had better put that question on the Paper.

OUTRAGES ON BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will be in a position to make public the terms of the new Note to the Russian Government?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: My hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Captain BENN: Will the Russian Government be asked to make any reply, or, if the reply is not satisfactory, will action be taken without this House being consulted?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better wait until we get the reply.

Captain BENN: If the letter makes a threat, will the House be consulted before the threat is implemented?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I could not say.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Has not the Prime Minister already said that the House will be consulted?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can we be informed why the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is not present on the one day of the week when Foreign Office questions are asked?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the diplomatic Note of protest to the Russian Government has yet been drawn up; whether it has been forwarded to Moscow for presentation to that Government; and when he will be in a position to state the terms of the Note?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: My hon. Friend can as yet add nothing to the reply given to the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea on 30th April.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the Note has not yet been decided on by the Cabinet?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I cannot add anything to the answer already given.

PASSPORT (MR. A. ROTHSTEIN).

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why a passport was refused in September, 1922, to Mr. Andrew Rothstein, a British subject desiring to travel to Russia?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The passport was refused because, in view of Mr. Rothstein's intimate connections with the Soviet Government and of the fact that his Russian parentage should entitle him to receive a Russian passport, it did not seem desirable to extend to him the facilities and privileges which the possession of a British passport would confer on him abroad.

Mr. BUXTON: Is there any precedent for a British subject, who has served in the British Army, being referred to a foreign Power for a passport?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: If the gentleman is of Russian parentage and is entitled to a Russian passport, is that not good enough for him?

Mr. LANSBURY: Are there not members of the aristocracy who are of German and Russian descent and all kinds of descent?

Captain Viscount CURZON: And members of the Labour party, too.

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes; why not? I do not confine my remark to any particular class. This is a disgrace. It is done simply because he is only a workman's son.

TRADE DELEGATION (LONDON).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position, in view of recent events, to give this House an assurance that the diplomatic privileges at present enjoyed by the Russian Trade Delegation in London will be withdrawn?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The whole question of our relations with the Soviet Government is at present under consideration, and my hon. Friend is not as yet in a position to make a statement.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Is it not a fact that quite recently a notorious Communist was arrested in Italy, and that
there were found on him three Bank of England notes, two for £1,000 and one for £500, and that these notes were traced to Soviet House, London?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot answer such a question without notice.

Captain BENN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman endorse the Prime Minister's pledge that no such action as is indicated will be taken without the assent of the House?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I cannot do that.

Mr. SPEAKER: A junior Minister does not endorse the Prime Minister's statements.

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government, in considering whether they shall consent to the continued presence in London of the Russian Trade Commission, have taken into consideration the fact that the total trade between this country and Russia did not, during the year and three-quarters ending with 31st December last, reach a value of 19 millions sterling, and that this same commission represents a Government which has robbed British subjects of all their possessions in Russia and persistently refuses to make restitution to the owners?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The answer is in the affirmative.

OPIUM.

Mr. PONSONBY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as the result of the joint resolution introduced by Mr. Porter in the United States House of Representatives in January last, and subsequently passed by Congress, representations have been made by the United States Government to His Majesty's Government with regard to the necessity of limiting the production of opium to the amount actually required for medicinal and scientific purposes; and, if so, what reply has been sent?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

RUMANIA (ALIEN MINORITIES).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the new Constitution of Rumania endangers the religious and linguistic rights of the alien minorities in that country; whether he is aware that Rumania thereby contravenes the Articles of the Minority Treaty concluded between Rumania and the principal allied and associated Powers on the 9th December, 1919; and whether, in accordance with the Articles of that Treaty, he will instruct the British representative on the Council of the League of Nations to bring to the attention of the Council the infraction, or danger of infraction, of the obligations of the Treaty?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Under Articles 22 and 24 of the new Rumanian Constitution freedom of worship and education is in principle guaranteed to religious and linguistic minorities in Rumania. The methods by which this principle shall in practice be applied is reserved for subsequent legislation, and until the nature of such legislation has been decided it would be premature to assume that the provisions of the Rumanian Minorities Treaties will not be fulfilled. The third part of the hon. Member's question does not, therefore, arise.

Captain BERKELEY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this question was raised at the last Council meeting in the very strongest terms by the Hungarian representatives, and that there was a very bitter debate upon it? Cannot he give the House better information?

WESTERN THRACE.

Mr. N. BUXTON: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Bulgarian villages in Western Thrace have been deported to Greek islands; and whether, in view of the fact that the Greek Government signed a treaty with the Allied Powers guaranteeing freedom and security to racial minorities, His Majesty's Government will, in accordance with the terms of that treaty, instruct the British representative to raise the question of Greek administration in Western Thrace at the next Council of the League of Nations?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: My hon. Friend understands that the Greek military authorities have deported a certain number of Bulgarian, Turkish and Greek villagers from the frontier villages on the ground of their proved complicity with the Bulgarian bands which have for some time been active upon the frontier, and which constitute a menace to the communications of the Greek forces in Eastern Thrace. The matter has already been referred to the Council of the League of Nations by the Bulgarian Government themselves, and was fully discussed at the last session of the Council.

Mr. BUXTON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that steps are taken to have a special and full report made on the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I will ask my hon. Friend to consider that request.

EASTERN GALICIA.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the decision of the Ambassadors' Conference to hand over Eastern Galicia to Poland requires the ratification of Great Britain; and, if so, when this House will have an opportunity of discussing whether that ratification should take place?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Stanley Baldwin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.

Mr. N. BUXTON: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what countries are represented at the Conference on Near Eastern Peace now being held at Lausanne?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: My hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to the reply which he gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on 18th April. All the Powers invited to send delegates to the Conference have done so.

Mr. BUXTON: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that a settlement can possibly be reached if one of the Powers chiefly interested, namely, Russia, is not a consenting party?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Without making any reflection on the hon. and gallant Gentleman, may I ask how it is that he is attempting to answer these questions and why the Under-Secretary is not present?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is fulfilling a very important engagement at one of the Embassies, and he hopes that the courtesy of the House will be extended to him in the circumstances.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I quite accept that explanation, of course.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to make any statement with regard to the progress of the negotiations at Lausanne?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: My hon. Friend regrets that he cannot, at the present stage, add anything to the statements which are appearing daily in the Press.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me any information as to the attitude of France and the statement in the Press as to the military precautions to be taken in connection with Turkey?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question on the Paper.

TURKEY (CHESTER CONCESSIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information about the Chester Concession in Turkey; and whether the Concession affects British interests in Turkey in any way?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: His Majesty's Government have just received a voluminous document which is stated to comprise the whole of the Chester Concessions. As far as examination has hitherto revealed, British commercial interests in Turkey are only concerned in connection with the construction of the harbour works at Samsoun, for which a
British company claims a preliminary contract concluded with the Turkish Government in 1911; and the construction of a railway extension in Iraq territory to Mosul and Suleimanieh, with mining rights along the line. The Acting British High Commissioner at Constantinople has been instructed to register an emphatic protest against the grant by the Turkish Government of rights within the borders of Iraq, and declare that the validity of any such grant could not be recognised by His Majesty's Government.

Captain BERKELEY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the terms of the Chester concession have already been published in an American newspaper? Is it not possible for the Government to lay the terms on the Table?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I will communicate the suggestion to the Under-Secretary.

TERRITORIAL WATERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position in international law as to the extent of territorial waters; how many States recognise the definite three-mile limit; how many States do not recognise this limit; and what was the conclusion reached on this subject at the Barcelona Conference in March and April, 1921?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The only rule which can be said to have received general recognition as defining the extent of territorial waters is that prescribing a limit of three miles drawn from low-water mark. My hon. Friend understands, however, that a number of States have at different times claimed to exercise jurisdiction for various specific purposes over a wider limit. No conclusion was reached on this subject at the Barcelona Conference.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the very great importance of this matter to us as a maritime Power, will the Government consider the calling of an international conference finally to settle this very difficult question?

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Has this country at any time, with any nation, recognised any limit outside the three miles limit?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Not that I am aware of.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Did not one of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's colleagues, in answer to a question yesterday, show that in Ceylon there is a limit of 12 to 20 miles claimed by the British Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): That is under very special conditions, as the hon. Member will see from the answer to another question to-day.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Is there any country which claims more than a three-miles limit which does not do so for very special reasons?

Viscount CURZON: Have any foreign subjects been seized by the British Government for infringing this rule?

FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT (BRITISH TRADE).

Mr. MOREL: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Messrs. Nicoll and Son, iron, steel and metal merchants, of Dundee, purchased through a London house last December a large quantity of steel tubes for the Banff and Macduff District Gas Company, to be supplied by a firm at Düsseldorf; that the tubes were despatched to Duisberg on 24th January for conveyance thence by canal to the sea board; that the French military authorities stopped their despatch; that all attempts to get these goods through either viâ Rotterdam or Bremen have failed, and that serious inconvenience and loss are being increased by the delay; if definite representations have been made by His Majesty's Government in this particular case, which was notified to the Board of Trade on 21st March last, and what reply has been received; whether there is an immediate prospect of these goods being released and, if not, seeing that this case is typical, and that many tons of goods contracted for by British firms continue to be held up in the Ruhr district, what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take through international arbitration or otherwise to test the legality of French action in hampering British trade in territory over which German sovereign
rights have not been abrogated by any process of international law recognised by His Majesty's Government?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Particulars of this contract were forwarded to the British High Commissioner at Coblenz with instructions to endeavour to secure the release of the goods, and a report is being called for as to the present position of the matter. As regards the action taken by His Majesty's Government relative to the hampering of British trade with the occupied territories of Germany, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on the 12th April, and to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Westbury on 23rd April.

Mr. MOREL: On what date was the inquiry sent out to Coblenz?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CORDITE FACTORY (TECHNICAL STAFF).

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the additional appointment of an assistant superintendent at the Royal Naval Cordite Factory, Holton Heath, will in any way affect, either financially or numerically, the present technical staff of that Department?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): Yes, Sir. We hope to effect some reduction in the number of the staff, but what the reduction will be has not yet been determined. The emoluments of the technical staff at the factory will not be affected.

DOCKYARDS (ESTABLISHED MEN).

Mr. HANCOCK: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total number of established men employed in His Majesty's dockyards for each year since 1918.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: As the reply contains many figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The total number of established workmen borne on the books of His Majesty's
dockyards at home in April, 1918, and the following years were:


1918
…
…
…
13,899


1919
…
…
…
15,255


1920
…
…
…
15,453


1921
…
…
…
15,476


1922
…
…
…
15,344


1923
…
…
…
14,756

HOSPITAL, HONG KONG.

Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it would be possible to effect an economy in naval expenditure at Hong Kong by amalgamating the naval and military hospitals; and, in view of the fact that the naval hospital is very near to the reclamation being carried out in the harbour and of the very high price of land ruling in the colony, if he will consider the advisability of disposing of the site of the present naval hospital, for which a large sum of money could be obtained?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: This question was carefully considered by the Board of Admiralty 12 months ago, and later came under the review of the Committee appointed by the late Government to consider the amalgamation of services common to the Navy, Army, and Air Force. The conclusion arrived at was that there would not be a sufficient margin of accommodation if amalgamation were to take place. This would especially be the case as regards officers; the military hospital at Hong Kong having only six equipped beds for officers.

Mr. STEWART: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman fully aware of the sum which could be obtained for the site of the present naval hospital, and that it would be sufficient to build another one and have some money in hand?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am afraid I am unable to answer that question.

WAR OPERATIONS (OFFICIAL HISTORY).

Major Viscount SANDON: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty who is to continue Sir Julian Corbett's work on the naval operations in the War; and when the next volume is to be expected?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: As regards the first part of the question, I hope a decision will be reached shortly. As regards the second, I understand that the next volume will be published about October.

Mr. HARRIS: As most of this information has already been revealed by the late First Lord, is it necessary to spend more public money on this purpose?

BATTLESHIP CONSTRUCTION (TYNE).

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what number of workpeople of all grades are at present employed on the work of the new battleship on the Tyne?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The total number of workpeople employed on the vessel in question is 109. The number is affected by the lock-out of the members of the United Society of Boilermakers and Iron and Steel Shipbuilders, as work on the steel structure of the ship is in consequence at a standstill.

Mr. DOYLE: Does not the very small number employed now compare very unfavourably with the number employed a week or a fortnight ago?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am not sure that I can answer that question. Of the number of 109 mentioned, 55 were engaged on machinery at Wallsend and 54 at Armstrong's, probably in the drawing office. The ship has now arrived at a stage where a great number of men could be employed if there were no labour problem.

SEAMEN RATINGS (PROMOTION).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of years able seamen are now serving before advancement to leading seamen; the number of years served by leading seamen before advancement to petty officer; the number of years served by petty officers before advancement to chief petty officer; which branches have automatic promotion; and how time served for advancement by those branches which possess automatic promotion compares with those whose advancement is by depôt roster?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The average periods served as able seaman, leading seaman and petty officer by
seaman ratings advanced during the quarter ending 31st December, 1922, were 5.15, 4.13 and 7.45 years respectively. The only branch with automatic promotion, other than the obsolescent armourer branch, is the writer branch, the corresponding standard periods for which are 3, 3 and 4 years respectively.

COMMITTEE ON ACCOMMODATION.

Sir B. FALLE: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the committees on accommodation in His Majesty's ships and establishments and on relative rank in His Majesty's Navy are now sitting; if he can give the composition of the committees; whether it is intended to take evidence from commissioned officers, from warrant rank, and warrant officers; and if it is intended to appoint a representative of these ranks on these committees?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The members of the committee on accommodation in His Majesty's ships are as follows:

Rear-Admiral D. L. Dent, C.B., C.M.G., Director of Naval Equipment (Chairman).
Rear-Admiral V. H. S. Haggard, C.M.G., Director of Training and Staff Duties.
Captain R. A. S. Hill, R.N., Naval Personnel Committee.
Captain W. G. McO. Campbell, C.M.G., R.N., Mobilisation Department
Mr. L. Woollard, Director of Naval Construction Department, with Mr. J. Lawson as Secretary.

The committee is at present sitting. As regards the third and fourth parts of the question, the committee will take such evidence as is necessary to enable them to frame their report, but it is not possible to say what particular officers will be heard. It is not intended to appoint a representative of commissioned officers, from warrant rank and warrant officers to serve on this committee. No committee is sitting on the question of relative rank in His Majesty's Navy.

SUICIDES (NAVAL FORCES).

Mr. J. DAVISON: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of suicides that have occurred in all ranks during the years 1921 and 1922?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The total number of suicides in the Naval Forces for 1921 was 21, out of an average number of 123,000 persons It is regretted the figure for 1922 is not yet available.

HARD-LYING MONEY.

Mr. FOOT: 24.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether the officers and men serving in destroyer flotillas employed in Turkish waters have been paid hard-lying money; and, if not, whether, in view of the duties these flotillas have been engaged upon, authority will be given for such payment?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Payment is not being made to ratings serving in those flotillas, as the Admiralty have no reason to think that the conditions of service are such as to justify payment. The payment of hard-lying money to officers serving in torpedo boat destroyers was abolished in 1919 on the introduction of the improved rates of naval pay.

Mr. SEXTON: Is it not a fact that officials of the Admiralty are already well paid for performing a similar task?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: That is the purport of my answer.

Mr. SEXTON: The hon. and gallant. Gentleman evidently cannot see the joke.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (MINIMUM AGE).

Mr. FOOT: 25.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the hardship suffered by families of naval ratings and Royal Marines under 25 years of age and of the continued high cost of living, it will be possible to reduce the minimum age for payment of marriage allowance from 25 years to 21 years for the current financial year?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The answer is in the negative.

FOREIGN -SERVICE LEAVE.

Mr. FOOT: 26.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the great difference between the conditions of service in the Atlantic Fleet and those in the China and
East Indies squadrons, the scale of foreign service leave can be increased for 21 days for each year of such service?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Although men serving in the Atlantic Fleet get 42 days' leave a year, this is to compensate them for the absence of weekend leave and other advantages which service at a home port carries with it. The grant of 10 days' drafting leave to men before proceeding abroad in effect raises the scale of foreign service leave to approximately 19 days a year, and as drafting is so arranged that all men get about the same amount of foreign, Atlantic Fleet and home harbour service, no reason is seen for altering existing arrangements.

NAVAL HEAVY GUNS (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).

Viscount CURZON: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks made by the Secretary to the United States Navy with reference to the difference in extreme elevation, and consequent difference in range, of the heavy guns of the United States fleet and the British fleet; and whether any statement can be made showing the actual facts regarding the elevation and range of the heavy guns in the two fleets?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: It is understood that the maximum service elevation and range of the main armament guns of United States battleships range from 15 degrees elevation and 21,000 yards' range to 30 degrees elevation and 34,500 yards, and of British ships from 20 degrees elevation and 23,800 yards to 30 degrees elevation and 30,300 yards. I propose, with my Noble and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate fuller details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Commander BELLAIRS: In view of the fact that the Japanese also intend to increase the elevation of the guns on all their capital ships, could not we enter into communication with both Governments to stop a fresh race in armaments?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: We do not propose to alter the elevation, and although the Americans appropriated money for that purpose, they have, on our assurance that we are not going to do
so, abandoned the idea. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) has raised an entirely different question.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain to us what we have to fear from the quality of the American guns?

Following are the details:


United States Battleships.




Yards.


16-inch guns, 45 cal., 30°
…
34,500


14-inch guns, 45 cal., 15°
…
21,000


12-inch guns, 50 cal., 15°
…
24,500


45 cal., 15°
…
22,000




British Battleships.




Yards range.


15-inch guns, 30° elevation
…
30,300


15-inch guns, 20° elevation
…
24,300


13.5-inch guns, 20° elevation
…
23,800

SERBIA (DEBT TO GREAT BRITAIN).

Mr. MOREL: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Serbian Government has contracted a loan of 300,000,000 francs with France for the purchase of war material to be furnished by French armament firms; and whether any arrangement has been discussed between His Majesty's Government and the Serbian Government in regard to the repayment of the Serbian debt to this country or for the payment of any interest thereon?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: My hon. Friend understands that negotiations have for some time been proceeding between the French and the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government, but he has no information that a loan has actually been concluded. In regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question, the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government have been asked to deposit interest bearing Treasury bills for their debt to this country.

JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.

Mr. J. DAVISON: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give an assurance that it is the considered policy of his Department to encourage the establish
ment of joint industrial councils and to advise the maintenance of such councils already formed?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): It is the policy of my Department to encourage the establishment of joint industrial councils in suitable cases, and to help to maintain those already formed. The experience of the working of these councils, having regard to the difficult times through which industry has been passing, has proved the great value of this form of voluntary joint machinery, by which employers' and workers' representatives meet regularly for the purpose of considering matters affecting their industries.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

Mr. LANSBURY: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether local authorities which receive grants from the Government Grants Committee, and are therefore obliged to employ 75 per cent. ex-service men, are allowed to include in this 75 per cent. men who served the country in wars previous to 1914?

Sir M. BARLOW: Men who did not serve in His Majesty's Forces during the Great War cannot under the Regulations be counted in the percentage referred to by the hon. Member.

TRAINING.

Mr. A. J. BENNETT: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the terms under which he is training disabled ex-service men for setting up in shopkeeping and household repair work; and whether any provision is subsequently made for affording them that financial assistance, which is essential to their making good?

Sir M. BARLOW: The course of training for small shopkeepers lasts three months. Part is given in an institution and part in a shop. Men are not placed in training unless local evidence shows that there is an opening in which they are likely to do well. A grant is made at the conclusion of training. The course of training for general repairs will last 12 months. The course includes
rough carpentry, minor household repairs, simple accounts and elementary estimating. A grant may be made at the conclusion of training, if satisfactory.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour the allocation by counties of the 70,000 to 80,000 disabled ex-service men who are still unemployed so that, since this condition of affairs is being dealt with by counties, there may be greater stimulation in providing the necessary work for these men?

Sir M. BARLOW: Figures of disabled men unemployed, county by county, could not be compiled without very considerable expense, and I doubt whether they would be of much service when obtained. The King's Roll Committees now set up for cities and boroughs and the larger urban districts are setting to work to ascertain accurately the numbers and names of the disabled men unemployed in their own areas, and this is, I think, the most effective basis on which to proceed.

BUILDING TRADE.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour what was the result of the Ministry's scheme for the special training of ex-service men for work in the building trade?

Sir M. BARLOW: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the scheme for the training and employment of non-disabled ex-service men which was instituted by the late Government. I understand that, as a result of the continued depression in the building industry, it was found to be impossible to absorb more than a small proportion of the applicants for training under the scheme and that it was finally abandoned.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the real reason for the abandonment of this scheme for training ex-service men in the building trade was the opposition of the building trade unions?

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that the attitude of the building operatives to this matter was very largely due to the fact of 100,000 building operatives being unemployed?

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: At that date, 1920, when application was made for 50,000 ex-service men to be absorbed into the building trade, was there not plenty of work for these men to do?

TUBERCULAR CASES (VILLAGE SETTLEMENTS).

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will take some action in furtherance of village settlement schemes for tuberculosis ex-service men, as recommended by the Barlow Report of 1918, by the establishment of additional settlements; and whether it is now contemplated to complete the village settlements at Papworth Hall, Cambridgeshire, and Barrowmore, in Cheshire?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have recently discussed this question with representatives of the British Legion at a meeting at which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions was also present. I am endeavouring to arrange for a personal visit to the settlement at Papworth, and also to that at Preston Hall, Kent, during the Whitsun Recess, and I hope to be able to arrive at a final decision on the whole question very soon afterwards.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Would the right hon. Gentleman, in making that inquiry, take into consideration also the position of this matter in Scotland, in which there are no village settlements at all?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That, I suppose, will arise on consideration of the whole matter.

STRIKES (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Mr. BECKER: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour how many strikes have occurred between co-operative societies and their workers for the year ending 31st March, 1923; and how many workers were involved?

Sir M. BARLOW: During the year ended 31st March, 1923, 12 disputes, resulting in stoppages of work, were reported to the Ministry of Labour as having arisen between co-operative societies in Great Britain and their employés. The total number of workpeople involved in these disputes was approximately 2,640.

Mr. BECKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of a strike at Silvertown, where the workers demanded a living wage from a co-operative society?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have no special information on that subject, but if the hon. Member wishes to put down a question on the Paper I will get particulars.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us how the numbers compare with those in regard to strikes by employés of capitalist organisations?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

UNCOVENANTED BENEFIT.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the increasing dissatisfaction amongst contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund with regard to the present regulations governing the administration of uncovenanted benefit; and can he expedite his promised reconsideration of these regulations so as to expedite the operation of any modifications which may result?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have no evidence that there is increasing dissatisfaction with regard to the rules for the grant of uncovenanted benefit. I would refer the hon. Member to my speech on the Estimates for the Ministry of Labour on 26th April, when I explained the result of the special consideration which I have recently given to this matter, together with modifications I proposed in certain directions.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the operation of the gap period in the new insurance scheme, increasing hardship occurs, where uncovenanted benefit has also been reduced; and can he say how soon he will announce his decision, after the reconsideration which has been promised?

Sir M. BARLOW: As I have already indicated, I did make an announcement on the Estimates, when the hon. Member had an opportunity of assisting us with any suggestions he had to make.

Mr. SHINWELL: Has the Minister of Labour not received a large number of complaints with regard to the Regulations
governing the provision of uncovenanted benefit for single persons?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have had issues raised by question and answer, and otherwise, in the House, but the number of complaints received from the country has been—in view of the statements made in the House—somewhat surprisingly small.

Mr. THOMSON: Arising out of the answer to my supplementary question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was not my fault that I was unable to assist him in the way he suggests, as I was not successful in catching the eye of the Chair?

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, considering that all but about £200,000 of the £4,214,357, the estimated cost of the Employment Exchange service, is in respect of the administration of unemployment insurance, he will now abolish the Employment Exchange service and place the latter under its proper designation of Unemployment Insurance service?

Sir M. BARLOW: The expressions "Employment Exchange service" and "Unemployment Insurance service" are nearly, but not quite, synonymous, and I am afraid I do not see how any economy or other advantage would be gained by abolishing the former expression.

Sir C. YATE: What is the good of keeping up a Government Department like the Employment Exchanges when neither workmen nor employers ever think of going to them?

Sir M. BARLOW: As there are 1,300,000 people resorting to them every week, I should have thought there was a very good reason for keeping them up.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES (LABOUR REPRESENTATIVES' EXPENSES).

Mr. HANNON: 36 and 37.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that the practice of paying the sum of 14s. 6d. per diem to the Labour representatives on the unemployment advisory committees attached to the Employment Exchanges is likely to lead
to the creation of a class of professional almoners; and, if so, whether he will consider the possibility of arranging that periodical changes shall be made in the composition of such representation;
(2) whether he is aware that the practice of paying fees to the Labour representatives on the unemployment advisory committees attached to the Employment Exchanges is arousing discontent amongst the class of small tradesmen who give their services free at considerable loss and inconvenience to themselves; and whether he will reconsider the necessity of continuing this practice?

Sir M. BARLOW: The members of the local employment committees receive no fees. The only payments made to them consist of (a) actual travelling expenses at third-class rates; (b) subsistence allowance at specified rates if they have to travel more than five miles or have to be away from home more than five hours; and (c) allowance for actual wages lost or other definite loss of remunerative time, subject to a maximum of 14s. a day. These allowances appear to me to be reasonable and I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with them. It is not practicable to change the composition of the committees periodically except so far as changes occur in the normal course, but the work is distributed among the members as far as possible. I should, perhaps, add that unemployed members are not eligible to sit on rota committees dealing with benefit in relation to which most of the work arises at present.

Mr. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in his opinion, the principle embodied in this question does not apply to the hon. Member who put the question, as a Member of this House?

Sir M. BARLOW: That is a matter of argument.

Mr. J. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the imputation contained in the first part of the question, which refers to the distribution of charity? There is no such thing as charity, so far as these people are concerned. They are recipients of benefit for which they have paid. Will he consider the advisability of making the hon. Member for the
Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) Lord High Almoner of Great Britain?

HIGHLY-SKILLED WORKERS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour if any statistics have been compiled or are compilable showing the average length of time during which highly-skilled workers have been unemployed since the War; and whether his Department has considered the concentration of its efforts on providing, otherwise than by unemployment pay, against the deterioration of their ability as a result of enforced idleness?

Sir M. BARLOW: Statistics showing the average duration of unemployment are not available, though it is known generally that in a number of cases individuals, some of them belonging to skilled trades, have been unemployed for

STATEMENT showing, for the 20 Poor Law Unions in England and Wales having in February last the greatest number (proportionately to population) of unemployed persons in receipt of outdoor relief, the total amount of outrelief, and the amount of relief to persons ordinarily employed (included therein) paid by the Board of Guardians during the weeks ending 7th, 14th and 21st April, 1923:


Name of Poor Law Union.
Week ending 7th April, 1923.
Week ending 14th April, 1923.
Week ending 21st April, 1923.


Total amount of out-relief.
Amount (included in previous column) of relief to persons ordinarily employed.
Total amount of out-relief.
Amount (included in previous column) of relief to persons ordinarily employed.
Total amount of out-relief.
Amount (included in previous column) of relief to persons ordinarily employed.


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.



£
£
£
£
£
£


Barrow-in-Furness
1,214
1,016
1,643
1,444
2,273
2,073


Bedwellty
5,114
3,241
5,933
4,068
4,704
3,783


Bermondsey
4,265
2,430
4,759
2,912
5,068
3,200


Birmingham
11,673
9,187
16,046
13,529
17,898
15,373


Bootle
215
126
213
124
248
158


Crickhowell
478
300
503
349
639
362


Dartford
1,902
1,369
2,568
2,005
2,946
2,395


Eccleshall Bierlow
2,350
1,758
4,063
3,461
4,341
3,722


Greenwich
4,790
3,339
5,796
4,347
5,901
4,448


Ipswich
1,074
794
1,748
1,453
1,807
1,508


Lincoln
1,254
701
2,335
1,644
2,315
1,761


Limehouse
1,355
1,159
1,514
1,304
1,489
1,280


Middlesbrough
2,885
1,380
3,103
1,604
3,944
2,470


Newcastle-upon-Tyne
5,371
2,833
7,874
5,294
11,036
8,418


Poplar Borough
11,432
8,309
12,322
9,200
13,361
10,238


Sheffield
8,288
6,460
11,491
9,617
13,730
11,861


South Shields
3,202
1,624
3,540
2,041
4,085
2,546


Stockton
1,295
681
2,576
1,969
2,569
1,962


West Ham
23,672
16,148
25,496
17,967
26,633
19,082


Walsall
1,389
719
1,845
1,124
2,400
1,657

long periods. The deterioration of skill owing to enforced idleness can only be prevented by means of employment in the men's own trades. The Government, therefore, have steadily kept in mind the desirability of stimulating the revival of normal industry by such measures as the Trade Facilities Act and the Export Credits Scheme.

RELIEF.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 59.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount of out-relief and the amount in unemployment relief paid during the week ending 7th April in the 20 unions where unemployment is greatest, and the similar sums paid during the two following weeks?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information desired.

Following is the statement:

JUVENILES.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the fact that some employers of juveniles make a practice of dismissing them when they reach the age of 16 and of replacing them by boys or girls who have just left school; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take to discourage this practice?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have no evidence that the practice referred to is at all general, and for obvious reasons it would be difficult to deal with it by means of official action. The juvenile employment committees, however, which exist in most of the larger towns, are well qualified to take such action as is likely to be useful by way of persuasion and advice.

DEPTFORD CATTLE MARKET.

Mr. HARRIS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the request from the Member for South-West Bethnal Green, on behalf of a number of London Members, to receive a deputation concerning the re-opening of Deptford cattle market now that the embargo on the importation of Canadian cattle has been removed; and whether, seeing the urgent importance of this question to the Metropolitan area, he is now prepared to accede to this request?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): In the absence of my right hon. Friend, I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave on 10th and 26th April to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Gilbert) and the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), respectively. The War Office is desirous of giving up, without delay, the eastern half of the area, which I understand is the part which was used as a cattle market. The Army Council are already in active negotiation with the landlords on the subject, and I do not think, therefore, that the reception of a deputation at present would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, owing to the delay in coming to a decision in this matter, much of this trade is going to other parts of the country instead of to London, and
that the City of London, who are the landlords in the matter, are more interested in getting the rents of this property than in providing market facilities for the people of London?

Mr. GWYNNE: It is quite clear that the War Office want to terminate their agreement with regard to this part of the market, but they cannot force the landlords. It can only be done by arrangement, which is being pressed forward as much as possible.

NORTHERN IRELAND (IMPERIAL GRANTS).

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that, under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, full power is reserved to the British Parliament to legislate for Northern Ireland on all matters, including those services which by the said Act are transferred to Northern Ireland, it is in pusuance of such reservation that since the said Act and the establishment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland moneys voted by this House have been transferred or paid to the Government of Northern Ireland to defray in whole or in part the expenses of services transferred to Northern Ireland?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to answer this question. I do not fully understand the hon. Member's question, but if his object is to ascertain what Grants-in-aid have been made by the Imperial Parliament to the revenues of Northern Ireland, I would refer him to the Estimates for the year 1922–23, Unclassified Services, numbers 7 and 8, and for the current year, Unclassified Services, number 5.

Mr. GRAY: May I have an answer to the first half of my question?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If I could understand it, I should be very glad to give an answer. Perhaps the hon. Member will explain it to me outside.

Mr. GRAY: On a point of Order. I am endeavouring to ascertain whether Members of this House are entitled to put questions to the Prime Minister or to the Home Secretary with reference to the conduct of proceedings in Northern
Ireland, having regard to the term of the Act of 1920. On that point, I should like to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better give me notice of that question.

HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE (TRADE DISPUTE).

Mr. HARRIS: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether there has been a trade dispute in connection with His Majesty's Stationery Office; what is the nature of the dispute; whether the men displaced have been replaced by men not belonging to the appropriate trade union; and what he proposes to do in the matter?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that an agreement on the matter in dispute was reached last week with the trade union concerned.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Sir EDWIN STOCKTON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now make a statement as to the general nature of the programme of the coming Imperial Economic Conference?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the announcement explaining the general scope of the Imperial Economic Conference which was published in the Press on the 23rd April. I cannot at present add anything to that.

IRAQ.

Mr. MOREL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister what military operations are actually in process in Iraq in the form of punitive expeditions against the Kurds; and the circumstances under which these operations have been undertaken?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No such operations are in progress. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. MOREL: As the hon. Gentleman says there are no operations in progress, may we be furnished with a statement of the actual distribution at the present
moment of our forces in Iraq, say, as between Mosul and Bagdad?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

AGRICULTURAL RATING.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now announce the Government's proposals regarding agricultural rating in Scotland?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): This matter is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make an announcement on the subject.

Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House say why the Government, when making an important announcement of policy, cannot make an announcement of policy for Scotland also to the House, instead of always keeping us waiting weeks?

Captain ELLIOT: It is a question of financial adjustment. There is no difference of policy to be applied to the two countries. The difference is in the matter of financial adjustment owing to the difference in the rating systems.

Major DUDGEON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that local authorities in Scotland commence the new financial year on the 16th of this month, and it is desirable that they should know at as early a date as possible?

Captain ELLIOT: I am aware of that, and we are using every effort to have this matter looked into as soon as possible.

POOR LAW ACT, 1845.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: 81.
asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he has received representations from Scottish parish councils pressing for the repeal of Section 37 of The Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, on the ground that the deductions which are now claimed are out of all proportion to what could have been contemplated when this Act was framed; that this year some of the claims have risen to over 300 per cent.; that in such circumstances the parish councils cannot accurately estimate the amount
the rates will produce; and whether the Government will take steps to repeal or amend the section on the basis of gross rental now suggested by many of the parish councils?

Captain ELLIOT: Representations to the effect stated in the question have been received by my Noble Friend who is considering them together with the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation with respect to the repeal of Section 37 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845.

MINING SUBSIDENCES.

Mr. NEWBOLD: 82.
asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he has had his attention called to the report of a case in Wellington Street, Motherwell, where, owing to fissures in the walls of a block of houses, occasioned by mining subsidences underneath the property, two schoolboys in a house adjoining that wherein a doctor was conducting a surgical operation were overcome with chloroform fumes; whether he is aware of the damage to private, co-operative, and municipal property caused by mining subsidences; and whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will during the present Session introduce a Bill to compel owners or operators of minerals to pay compensation for damage done by reason of subsidences caused by underground workings?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): I have been asked to answer this question. The circumstances mentioned in the first part of the question had not previously come to the notice of the Scottish Board of Health, but my hon. and gallant Friend is making inquiries. The general question of surface damage due to mining operations is under careful consideration by the Government, but no such legislation as the hon. Member suggests will be possible during the present Session.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the very great interest that is taken in this subject by the local authorities throughout the country, and cannot he do something to secure tranquillity in this respect?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir, there is undoubtedly great interest taken
in this very important question, and the matter is being very carefully considered at the present time.

METHYLATED SPIRITS.

Mr. WHEATLEY: 83.
asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if representations have been made by the Scottish local authorities asking the Government to bring in legislation to deal with the increasing evil of the consumption of methylated spirits as a beverage; and, if so, can he inform the House what action is intended to stop this practice?

Captain ELLIOT: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The possibility of preventing the consumption of methylated spirits as a beverage is at present engaging the attention of the Departments concerned, but the problem is one of considerable difficulty.

UNITED STATES LIQUOR LAW (BRITISH SHIPS).

Mr. MILLAR: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the American Government intend to issue orders to vessels belonging to the American fleet to assist in preventing the landing in America of cargoes of rum and spirits, etc., carried by vessels engaged in rum-running and of the fact that large quantities of liquor are being consigned by British traders to British ports in the West Indies and elsewhere, which are being trans-shipped and carried along the American coasts on board vessels flying the British flag as well as by other vessels, he will say what steps he proposes to take to prevent the possibility of an armed conflict with vessels belonging to a friendly Power?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have no official information with regard to the alleged intention of the United States Government to use vessels of the United States navy for preventive work, but I hesitate to believe that a friendly Power would attack British ships on the high seas. If, however, British ships break United States laws within United States territorial waters, they naturally render themselves liable to any general measures of control which the United States Government may institute.

Mr. MILLAR: Can the Government do anything to encourage the recognition and enforcement of the laws of a friendly State by British subjects?

Mr. BALDWIN: The British Government have every desire that their citizens should act in conformity with the laws of friendly States.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have the Government let it be known to the Governors of the islands there that they do not look upon this traffic with favour?

INDUSTRIAL POISONING.

Mr. HANCOCK: 55.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases of industrial poisoning for each of the last three years, and how many were fatal?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply to this question. If, as I presume, the hon. Member refers to the industrial diseases notifiable under the Factory and Workshop Act, the numbers are as follows: In 1920 there were 514, of which 38 were fatal; in 1921 there were 350, of which 32 were fatal; and in 1922 there were 410, of which 35 were fatal.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

OVERCROWDING, POPLAR.

Mr. LANSBURY: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a communication from the medical officer of health for the borough of Poplar enclosing a statement of 40 typical cases of serious overcrowding in the borough and specially drawing attention to the fact that in every case a person suffering from tuberculosis is living and sleeping with the men, women, and children existing under these conditions; whether he is aware that the medical officer of health for Poplar, on the instructions of the health committee, has on many occasions made representations to Ministers of Health urging that the law should be put into operation for clearing the slum areas in the borough and that the official reply of the Ministry has always been that the local and national finances did not permit of these unhealthy areas being dealt with; and will he give instructions to one of the officers of his Department to proceed to Poplar and advise the medical
officer of health and the borough council what steps they should take in order to deal efficiently with the prevailing conditions, which daily become more deplorable?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second question is that I am not, as at present advised, aware of official correspondence between the Ministry of Health and the Medical Officer of Health of the character mentioned or of such official statements as are mentioned. The answer to the third is that the nature of the action which can be taken in such regrettable conditions, short of rehousing the people, should be within the knowledge of the Medical Officer of Health. As regards rehousing, I may add that it is for the Borough Council of Poplar to approach the London County Council with a view to proper consideration of the claim of the borough for inclusion in the general scheme of slum improvement in London which is under consideration, and for which State assistance would be forthcoming under the Housing Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the past 30 years the Poplar Council, and before the Poplar Council the Poplar District Board of Works, has been representing to the central authorities these areas, and that as long ago as 1920 ten areas were represented to the London County Council, and two years ago the right hon. Gentleman's own Department held an inquiry, and not a single one of these areas has been dealt with, and children, women and men are suffering—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] The right hon. Gentleman makes a statement. Is he also aware that at least a dozen deputations have been to the Minister of Health on this very subject?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman makes his supplementary questions too long.

Mr. LANSBURY: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a communication from the Clerk to the Poplar Guardians, enclosing a letter from a resident in the union, stating that the writer together with his wife and three children are living in one room, that the family consists of a boy aged 10 and two
girls aged 12 and 16 years, that in the house there are in all three families, 12 children and 6 adults, that the room occupied by the man, wife, and three children is 9 feet by 12 feet, that one child is sick; is it a fact that this man asked for accommodation in the workhouse in order that his children might be spared the indecency of living and sleeping under such conditions; and what steps does he propose to take to assist boards of guardians in dealing with such cases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received the letter referred to by the hon. Member. I understand that the man in question has now applied for a house on one of the London County Council Estates, and further inquiries are being made to see whether the case can be dealt with in this way.

GOVERNMENT BILL (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' VIEWS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether, between the Second Reading of the Housing (No 2) Bill and its consideration in detail in Committee, he is taking steps to obtain from the local authorities throughout the country their views upon the proposals of the Bill; if not, whether he will do so, and in that case supply members of the Committee with a careful analysis of what these views are, so that they may be guided by them in the detailed consideration of the Measure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think time would admit of such a course of special inquiry as is suggested by my hon. Friend, apart from the objection in principle to such action in respect of a Bill engaging the consideration of the House of Commons. I have no doubt that hon. Members serving on the Committee will be placed in a position to represent very fully the views of the local authorities on the Bill.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (INTEREST).

Mr. LINFIELD: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether the interest demanded by the Public Works Loan Board when lending to public utility societies and others for constructing houses in the future is still 5½ per cent.; and if he has considered the advisability, in view of the necessity for encouraging house construction on economical lines, of arranging
that the interest charge shall be reduced to the lowest limit at which the Government itself can borrow?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I have been asked to reply. The hon. Member will find a full statement of the present rates for advances from the Local Loans Fund in yesterday's "Gazette." These rates which have been recently reduced are the lowest at which loans can be made without loss to the fund. The main rate is 4¾ per cent.

LINLITHGOW.

Mr. SHINWELL: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the housing requirements for the County of Linlithgow as revealed in the 1919 survey; how many houses have been built by the local authorities since; and how many are in course of erection?

Captain ELLIOT: I have been asked to reply to this question. The number of houses required, as shown in the schemes submitted by local authorities in the county, was 1,435. Up to date, 407 houses have been completed and 61 are in course of erection.

ASSESSMENTS.

Mr. BECKER: 71.
asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the quinquennial revaluation of house property, he will introduce a short Bill to stipulate that the assessment value of house property shall not exceed 40 per cent. increase over the 1918 assessment, as has been done with regard to rents under the Rent Restrictions Act?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. The basis of the revaluation of property for Income Tax purposes has been explained in replies given on the 15th and 26th March to the hon. Member for Brighton. I am sending the hon. Member copies of those replies, from which he will see that there is no ground for legislation on the lines suggested in his question.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In view of the feeling in the country in regard to this revaluation, will the people who are going to appeal be supplied with sufficient information to enable them to make their appeal, as they certainly do not know on what basis the valuation is being made?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I will consider that.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the great importance of this matter to many people, and especially to those who cannot get technical advice, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the possibility of giving more than three weeks for appeal?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that although 21 days is formally put on the Notice Paper that that is not operative, and an extension can always be obtained on good reasons shown.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Who gives that extension?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I do not know who the actual authority is.

Mr. BECKER: Seeing the enormous amount of increase that has been made in the assessments of the property of middle-class people, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider recommending to the Government to propose for one year the levying of taxation on the new Assessment so that this important matter may be fully considered?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

NEWBURN, NORTHUMBERLAND.

Mr. DOYLE: 73.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been built by the Newburn (Northumberland) Urban District Council; how long these houses have been completed; and why they remain unoccupied?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: 500 houses have been built by the Urban District Council in question. Of this number 232 were completed ready for occupation by August, 192[...], and were, I understand, let to tenants. The remaining houses were completed early in November, but owing to certain defects could not be let for occupation. Arrangements were made to remedy the defects, and I understand that it is estimated that the whole of the houses will be occupied at an early date.

Mr. DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why these houses are not occupied is because the doors cannot be opened; and that the reason the doors cannot be opened is because the doors are jammed; and the reason the doors are jammed is because
they have been made of new wood imported from Sweden and once the doors are closed they cannot be opened?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving an answer to his own question.

EGGS (IMPORTS).

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that dried eggs imported from China are liable to contain zinc oxide derived from the zinc plates on which the eggs are dried; that large quantities of these dried eggs are excluded from the United States of America on account of the zinc oxide which they contain; and whether his Department will take steps to ensure that dried eggs imported into this country are free from deleterious ingredients and are suitable for use in the preparation of foodstuffs?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to the first two parts of the question, but I am having inquiries and investigations made into this matter.

MILK AND DAIRIES' REGULATIONS.

Mr. HANNON: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the uncertainty as to the date on which the Regulations under the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Act will come into operation is causing perturbation amongst those who are interested in the improvement of the conditions of the national milk supply, and that the majority of dairymen are postponing action until such time as the intentions of the Ministry of Health are known; and whether he intends to fix 1st July, 1923, as the date on which the Regulations will come into force?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Milk (Special Designations) Order, 1922, which came into operation on the 1st January last. In accordance with the promise which I gave on the 13th March to my hon. Friend the Member for the Stone Division (Mr. Lamb) the Order has been revised in certain matters of detail, and I hope to be in a position to issue the revised Order at an early date. It is proposed that the new Order shall come into operation on the 1st July next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

MEDICAL BENEFIT.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government actuary notified Sir Eric Geddes' Committee that he could not safely advise that the funds of approved societies could bear any further burden in respect of increased payments on account of medical benefit without an increase of contributions; and whether he has given any further advice on this subject?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The advice given by the Government actuary to the Committee on National Expenditure, with regard to the matter referred to by the hon. Member, is contained in Appendix B to the First Report of that Committee (Cmd. 1581), page 139. The Government actuary gave further advice on the subject in his Report on the Financial Provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, 1922, with regard to which I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to him on the 18th and 23rd April.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Government actuary has given any further advice since the last Report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

APPROVED SOCIETIES (ADMINISTRATIVE ALLOWANCE).

Sir K. WOOD: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to recommend any reduction in the administrative allowance of approved societies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Having secured the concurrence of the Consultative Council on National Health Insurance (Approved Societies' Work), I propose to lay before Parliament at an early date the draft of a Regulation to reduce the maximum allowance to societies for purposes of administration from the present figure of 4s. 10d. to 4s. 5d. per insured member per annum as from the 1st January, 1924.

Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the last reduction was made in these expenses?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask for notice of that question.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY (POWERS AND JURISDICTION).

Mr. F. GRAY: 76.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the University of Oxford, by virtue of a number of ancient statutes, claim to exercise power and authority over a limited class not confined to the students of the university nor within the local limits of the university boundary, ousting the power and authority of Government Departments and local authorities and the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Courts, civil and criminal, including the Supreme Court of Judicature; and whether he is prepared to advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the above powers and jurisdiction claimed by the university and to report as to the past, present, and future exercise thereof?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The University of Oxford exercises certain civil jurisdiction, subject to Rules approved by the Rule Committee of the Supreme Court and to a right of appeal to the High Court. The Vice-Chancellor also exercises jurisdiction as a Justice of the Peace for the Counties of Oxford and Berks. I have consulted with my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, and we see no reason for adopting the course suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. GRAY: Is it not the fact that the University of Oxford has a criminal jurisdiction over and above the powers possessed by the Vice-Chancellor as a magistrate for Oxford and Berkshire?

Sir CHARLES OMAN: Has not this power of the University to deal with disorderly women been proved to be held without any scandal or trouble, and to be a thoroughly advantageous matter for the University and city during the last 30 or 40 years?

Mr. GRAY: May I have a reply to my question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: Both the supplementary questions are in the nature of a demonstration.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (DINING ROOM CHARGES).

Mr. PONSONBY: 78.
asked the hon. Member for Cheltenham, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether, in
view of the fact that an hon. Member who entertains a female guest at dinner has to pay more than twice as much as when he entertains a male guest, he will so adjust the prices of meals as to secure prandial equality for the sexes in the dining rooms of this House?

Sir JAMES AGG-GARDNER (Chairman of the Kitchen Committee): I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I have carefully examined our prices and arrangements, and I cannot find any trace of those "prandial inequalities for the sexes" to which he refers, and which, should they ever exist, I would gladly join him in deprecating.

NEED PENSION (MRS. J. RICHARDS, CORRIS).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 84.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Jane Richards, 56, Garneddwen, Corris, a dependant in receipt of the flat-rate pension of 5s., who, on account of illness, applied for a need pension, and was awarded one of 20s. per week; whether he is aware that in announcing the award the pensioner was informed that it was in substitution for her pension of 5s per week, and that if the need pension ceased to be payable she would not be entitled to revert to the flat-rate pension; and whether this is now the adopted policy of the Ministry of Pensions.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Charles Craig): This communication was issued on suggestions from representatives of ex-service men who were anxious that applicants for need pensions should fully understand the conditions under which such pensions are granted. The terms of the notice and the general question raised by this type of case are receiving the personal consideration of my right hon. Friend.

TRAINING COLLEGES.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 85.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that local education authorities resent statements that the present critical financial position of training
colleges maintained by local authorities is due to unwillingness on the part of local authorities to co-operate with those authorities maintaining training colleges; that the position is really due to the withdrawal by the Board of Education in 1919 of the substantial capitation grants, which the Board are still paying to denominational and other training colleges not maintained by local authorities; and whether he will now take steps to reinstate for those colleges the capitation grants previously paid?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): My right hon. Friend cannot, within the limits of question and answer, discuss from the historical point of view the circumstances which have led up to the present position, but with regard to the third part of the question I may refer the hon. Member to the announcement contained in the answer given on the 19th April to my Noble Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Will the President of the Board of Education consider whether expenditure might be reduced and great advantage secured to the profession if the students were not trained in exceptional ways and separately from the others?

Lord E. PERCY: That is a question of policy which I shall be glad to represent to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

DEPOSITS (ACKNOWLEDGMENTS).

Mr. W. JENKINS (Neath): 87.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the large number of depositors, he will re-introduce the system of giving an official acknowledgment for each deposit, however small?

Major BARNSTON: Acknowledgments for deposits of under £20 in the Post Office Savings Bank were abolished some years ago as a measure of economy. This policy has been fully justified by results, and in view of the cost of acknowledging separately many million deposits, my right hon. Friend is not prepared to revert to the former practice.

PICTURE POSTCARDS (POSTAGE).

Mr. MILLAR: 88.
asked the Postmaster-General how much it would cost, on the basis of present figures, to withdraw the Regulation under which only five words may be written on picture post-cards at the halfpenny rate; whether he has formed any estimate as to the increase in the number of such post-cards which would be sent through the post, and as to the increase in revenue which would accrue to the Post Office if this restriction were removed; and whether, in order to ascertain if the Post Office revenue would be thereby increased, he is prepared to withdraw the Regulation for the present year?

Major BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend regrets that no data are available on which to base the estimates for which the hon. Member asks; but he is not prepared to introduce a reduced rate which would compel the sender of a post-card to have a picture imprinted upon it in order to take advantage of the reduction.

Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the circulation of these cards would be enormously increased and the revenue benefit by the suggestion?

Major BARNSTON: I will convey that to my right hon. Friend.

AMBULANCE SERVICE, LONDON.

Mr. BRIANT: 72.
asked the Minister of Health if he has yet decided either to appoint a Committee or call a Conference on the ambulance system of London?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I am awaiting a report upon the special inquiries which I have instituted.

ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 79.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether injury is being caused to vegetation in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, by the emission of black smoke from factory shafts in Brentford; and, if so, whether he will take legal steps to abate the nuisance similar to those successfully taken by the First Commissioner of Works in 1902,
when Brentford smoke was shown to be causing serious injury to plant-life in the Royal Botanic Gardens?

Major BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to the injury being caused by smoke to vegetation in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and the matter is at present receiving his careful consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In view of the pleasure that the gardens give to hundreds of thousands of people, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take immediate and definite steps to see that the amenities of the gardens are preserved?

Major BARNSTON: I will convey that to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEMBLEY STADIUM.

APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE.

Colonel MAURICE ALEXANDER: 91.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the very large number of people who attended last Saturday's cup final match at Wembley and the heavy list of casualties, whether he will take steps to effectually protect the public in the future and to see that the Football Association and their agents, the Stadium authorities, and transportation companies do not carry to any match a crowd twice the size of the capacity of the ground; whether sufficient police were engaged at Wembley; and, if sufficient in number, if they were wisely distributed?

Captain Sir WILLIAM EDGE: 90.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the large number of casualties at the cup final at the Wembley Stadium on Saturday; if he can state who was responsible for the arrangements; if he proposes to call for a police report on the adequacy of the measures taken both to control the crowd and to regulate the traffic; whether the police themselves are consulted as to the measures to be taken on events of this magnitude; whether they were so consulted on this occasion; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. BARNES: 92.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received an official report of the extraordinary scenes which took place at Wembley on Saturday
last owing to the inadequate arrangements made by the authorities responsible; whether he can state the number of persons injured and if anything can be done to compensate them for the injuries received; and will he undertake to make representations to those responsible for the arrangements at Wembley to ensure that the public are adequately safeguarded at future events which may be held at the Stadium?

Mr. J. JONES: 93.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement regarding the incidents which took place at the Wembley Stadium on the occasion of the football match last Saturday; and whether, in view of the fact that there were about 1,000 casualties of a more or less serious nature, he will order a public inquiry into the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The arrangements for the admission of spectators and their regulation within the Exhibition grounds were under the control of the British Empire Exhibition authorities. The number of police to be employed within the grounds was settled in consultation with the police authorities; in addition to the police so employed, a large number was held in reserve.
The police were responsible for the regulation of the road traffic and the preservation of order on the approaches to the Exhibition grounds. I believe they dealt successfully with an exceptionally difficult problem.
The casualties which occurred have probably been somewhat exaggerated in the accounts which have appeared in the Press. The number of persons treated by the ambulance staff on the ground for faintness or slight injury was no doubt considerable, but I am informed that in only 22 cases was removal to hospital necessary; in 10 of these the patients were able to proceed to their homes on the same day and only three cases are described as serious. Two police were injured, but not seriously.
So far as regards the Stadium iteslf, the best and most expeditious course, I think, on the information before me, will be for the Exhibition authorities and the police to confer together as to the best measures to provide against any recurrence of last Saturday's incidents. But in view of the possibility of incidents
involving similar risks occurring elsewhere, I am considering the advisability of appointing some form of Committee to examine the general question in all its aspects.

Mr. MOSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman now state how many police were employed and how many were held in reserve?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I could have stated that at any time if the hon. Member had asked me and he might have put a notice on the Paper. I see that I have the figures here. The police available were 12 inspectors, 53 police sergeants, and 530 police constables. I may say that that is more than twice as many as the number that has ever been provided before at any Cup Tie Final.

Mr. BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when he proposes to establish the Committee to which he has referred? Will it be set up immediately or later on?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have to consider what will be the best form, because it is rather a large question and goes beyond this particular incident. I hope that the Exhibition Board and the police authorities will start their consultation at once with regard to this particular case, but the other inquiry is rather a large question, and I shall have to consider what will be the best form for it to take.

Mr. MOSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that 500 police were sufficient to deal with a crowd of over 200,000 people; and does he still say that the organisation for which he was responsible was in no way to blame?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The number of police supplied is the number asked for by the Exhibition Board, and that is all the police could be expected to do.

Mr. MOSLEY: Is not the preservation of public order the duty and responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir ALFRED BUTT: Is it not a fact that the number of police was the number asked for by the Management Committee?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already said so.

IRISH FREE STATE (DEPORTEES).

Mr. EDE: 94.
asked the Home Secretary if Miss Grace Lally was arrested at the request of the Free State Government; if he has any knowledge, except such request from the Free State, of any activity of Miss Lally against the Free State Government at any time since its establishment; and, if so, the nature of such activity?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The information in regard to Miss Lally will be disclosed to the Advisory Committee if and when she submits representations against the order of internment.

Mr. EDE: 95.
asked the Home Secretary if Mr. Charles Garrety, Mr. J. D. M'Cann, Miss Mary Finan, and Miss Kathleen Brooks were at any time interned in Mountjoy Prison; if so, at what date were they removed from that prison; and what are the reasons for their present internment in England instead of in Ireland?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: All these persons were originally interned in Mountjoy Prison. Mr. Garrety and Miss Finan were removed to Brixton and Holloway Prisons respectively on the 14th ultimo in order that they might appear before the Advisory Committee. Miss Brooks was removed to Holloway Prison on the 23rd ultimo as she was reported to be in bad health. Mr. McCann was removed to Brixton Prison on the 29th ultimo in order that he might appear before the Advisory Committee.

PUBLIC SERVICES (ANDERSON COMMITTEE).

Sir E. STOCKTON: 96.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to appoint any further Committees to inquire into the pay of other public servants who are not dealt with by the Anderson Committee; and, if so, whether he can make any statement on the subject?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The reference to the Anderson Committee embraces all State servants. If, as I assume, the hon. Member has in mind the cases of the teachers or the police, I would suggest that his question would
be more appropriately addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

BREWERY WORKERS (WAGES).

Mr. SNOWDEN: 98.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the wages of the brewery workers in different parts of the country are being reduced by five and six shillings a week; and whether, in the arrangement he made with the brewers for the reduction of the Beer Duty, he stipulated that the brewers should not pass on to the brewery workers and the consumers a part or the whole of the 4s. per barrel they are intended to bear?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the statements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made on the reduction of the Beer Duty.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Am I to understand from that reply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not aware of the fact that wages have been reduced all over the country?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I have already said that he is not aware of that fact.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Then he ought to be.

KING'S VISIT TO ROME.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any truth in the statement which appears in a leading article in the "Times" this morning with reference to the impending visit of His Majesty the King to Rome that "the place of Lord Curzon will be taken by Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, who accompanied King Edward in a similar capacity on so many of his travels"?

Mr. BALDWIN: The statement referred to is without foundation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Captain W. BENN: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the Debate on the Second Reading of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Continuance) Bill may take some hours and, consequently, the Debate on the Housing Bill Money Resolution, Report stage, may not be reached much before the dinner hour and there is a Private Member's Motion down for 8.15? In view of the fact that this Money Resolution is really the essence of the Bill, and remonstrances have been made from many quarters of the House, not merely by those sitting on the Opposition side, does the right hon. Gentleman really propose to take the essential part of the Housing Bill after 11 o'clock at night?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid that it would be impossible to alter the business put down for to-day. I trust that my hon. and gallant Friend's anticipation about the first Order will not be realised. With regard to the Report of the Financial Resolution, I admit that it is one of great importance, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend will remember that we had a very full Debate during the Committee stage of that Resolution.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Health received from his own side, from a member of the late Cabinet, representations that he might reconsider his attitude on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, and does he really think that twelve or one o'clock in the morning is a suitable time for arriving at decisions on matters of this kind?

Mr. BALDWIN: Apart from suitability, unfortunately, that is sometimes necessary.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARDS.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish wages boards in the agricultural industry for the fixing of minimum rates of wages; and for other purposes in connection therewith.
This Bill is in all essentials the same proposal as that with which the House and the country are familiar from experience in connection with the Corn Production
Act. There are only two points on which the present proposal of the Labour party differs. The first is that we divide the authority into separate authorities for England and Wales; and the second is that we name no minimum money figure in the Bill. In the recent Agriculture Debate there was talk about an objection to a flat rate, but, as we are not proposing a flat rate, I hope hon. Members opposite will feel that their objection has been removed.
There is, as everyone knows, an overwhelming case for the regulation of wages in agriculture. It is impossible in 10 minutes to enumerate the arguments, but, fortunately, the House, during the last six weeks, has had certain opportunities for debating the pros and cons of agricultural wage regulations.
Everyone said during the War that the Wages Board in agriculture worked very well. They not only said it was a good thing in order to get work done, but they also said that it was a just thing. If a sense of justice was aroused in the public conscience in those days, surely we are not going to admit that that sense of justice is dead.
There is one exception, perhaps, to the general principle of the method of board regulation of agricultural wages. The hon. Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Mr. Bruford) said the other day that the men on his farm would do better, and would get better pay, without a board. I may, perhaps, then, call this Bill a Bill for levelling up the neighbours of the hon. Member for the Wells Division of Somerset to his wage level; and, more than that, for protecting him against the resentment that his farming neighbours undoubtedly feel against him for paying higher wages than they do.
There are two objections which have been raised against the proposal. The main one, of course, is that, in these days of depression of prices, farmers cannot pay a better wage. In regard to that, I shield myself behind the authority of that unrivalled agricultural expert, Sir Henry Rew, who, in an article in this month's "Contemporary Review," says that that case is not proved. I would also advance that it is for the men to decide whether they like to take the risk of a certain small fraction of arable land going out of cultivation. After all, they
are entitled to say that, even if, possibly, 5 per cent. of the farms in certain parts may be driven to grass, that is no reason for levelling down the standard of living on the remaining 95 per cent. Of course, however, the board is a responsible body. It would take count of the possibilities in regard to the payment of wages. In the counties with which I am familiar, the board worked very well during the War, and its decisions were generally arrived at by the influence of the nominated members representing the Ministry of Agriculture. We are not to suppose that the Ministry of Agriculture will act in a wild-cat manner and encourage wages which could not possibly be paid; so that this proposal only secures that, when prosperity returns—and there are signs of returning prosperity in agriculture—Labour will get its share. Everyone admits that, in the boom, Labour did not get a share equivalent to that which the farmers obtained.
We are told that the farmers are ready to accept the Board, but that it is conditional upon assistance being given to them in other ways. May I just remind the House that the Prime Minister, not long ago, advocated Wage Boards for agriculture without any talk of a countervailing boon to be given to the farmer? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham promised the men that the country would never again neglect their interests; and we all know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for many years has taken that line. I remember, too, that, when I was in the House 10 years ago, a Bill was introduced from the other side of the House to establish the system of Wage Boards. That was years before the War. Finally, there are the proposals of the Tribunal set up by this Government, which also are in favour of Wages Boards.
If they are to be conditional, have not the conditions been fulfilled? Have not the farmers got their quid pro quo? They are to take £2,750,000 in relief of rates; they are to have £1,300,000 from the Road Board; they are to have 10s. a quarter on malting barley; they are promised credit facilities; prices are going up; and, on the top of all that, the rates, we are told, during the last year, have fallen by 1s. 6d.
in the pound, on an average, in the rural areas.
The Tribunal said that there ought to be boons on both sides. Perhaps three-quarters of the cake was to go to the farmers. But is the Government to say, like a shrewish stepmother, that the whole cake is to go to the farmer and none of the cake to the labourer? Surely, that is rather an un-British idea, and I trust that it is rejected by the party opposite especially, which claims a very large share of the patriotism of this country.
There are two reasons why the Board is more urgently needed than it was before. Experience of its working shows that it has improved the relations of farmers and men. Certainly, in Norfolk, it did a great deal by bringing them together and forcing them to work together. If the Act had not been repealed, Sir Henry Rew again says, we should not have had the Norfolk strike. Good employers welcomed it. The settlement at 25s. proves the need of it. If there is any meaning in the word "starvation," it is injurious underfeeding. There is injurious underfeeding as the result of the absence of the Board to-day. I was talking to an old labourer, a pensioner, last Sunday. The old men, although they do not usually pity the younger men, say that the younger men are doing worse than they did even in the bad old days. A schoolmistress in Norfolk was telling me that the average increase in weight of the children in her school during the period of last year has been only 20 per cent. of the increase in weight during the previous twelve months. That is a very serious thing indeed. We are asking the labourer's wife, an unknown heroine, to bring up a generation of men on an impossible means for doing it. The effect of refusing, as I trust the Government will not refuse, to re-establish the system, will be the underfeeding of the children, and the putting of an impossible task upon the rural population.
I think I may fairly appeal for general support for this Measure. The idea of regulating to prevent the occurrence of areas with wages below the subsistence level has been established now for 14 years in this country. I am only, by this Bill, asking the House virtually to agree
to an amendment of the Trade Boards Act, which, as we are told, does not definitely include the industry of agriculture. The principle is the same. The Minister of Labour told us a few days ago that no less than 2,500,000 workers are now covered by the provisions of the Trade Boards Act. Agriculture is only regarded in a different light because there is a certain tradition, which has come down, I suppose, from the days when the labourer was a serf; and we remember that 40 years ago it was thought an incredible thing that he should even have a political vote. We are recovering a great deal from those illusions, and, surely, after the service the labourer gave to the country in the War, those illusions ought to be abandoned. This ought not to be a contentious proposal. It is a basic claim that the labourer who feeds us shall not see his children go hungry for want of what the labourer himself produces. I only ask that, when prosperity returns, he should get his fair share. We ought all to agree that if the proposal was good in war-time, it is all the more necessary now. I beg to move.

Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish Wages Boards in the agricultural industry for the fixing of minimum rates of wages; and for other purposes in connection therewith," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Noel Buxton, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Ede, Mr. Richards, Mr. Riley, Mr. Royce, Mr. T. Smith, Mr. T. Williams, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. MacLaren, Mr. Frederick Roberts, and Mr. Robert Richardson.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARDS BILL,

"to establish Wages Boards in the agricultural industry for the fixing of minimum rates of wages; and for other purposes in connection therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 16th May, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

BILLS REPORTED.

City and South London Railway Bill,

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Nationality of Married Women:—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to examine the British Law as to the Nationality of Married Women, etc., pursuant to the Commons Message of yesterday, and they propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room C on Tuesday next, at Twelve o'clock.

Lords Message considered.

Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
2. "That, in the case of the Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
3. "That, in the case of the London and South Western Railway Bill [Lords] Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted o insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
4. "That, in the case of the North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
5. "That, in the case of the West Hartlepool Corporation Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the
1391
parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
6. "That, in the case of the Macclesfield Corporation Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Captain Hudson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

4.0 P.M.

Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House declines to give a Second Heading to this Bill until the complete proposals of the Government with regard to rent restrictions have been submitted to the House.
When the Minister of Health asked leave to bring in this Bill, I took the opportunity of putting certain considerations before the House in opposition to the Measure. Although on that occasion a Division was not taken, I have thought it right, when the Order for Second Reading was taken, that the House should have an opportunity of dealing with the essential contentions which at that time I put forward. It is on that account that I now propose to move that this House declines to give a Second Reading to this Bill until the complete proposals of the Government with regard to rent restrictions have been submitted to this House. Before dealing with the main point, I think it is important that the House should recollect the history of the statutory treatment of this interesting and difficult topic. The first Act dealing with the control of houses was passed in 1915. There were afterwards two Statutes, passed in 1919, and there were certain provisions in the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act which also affected this question. It is important that we should remember the reasons the principal Act, when it was proposed in 1920, was commended to the favourable attention of the House. We wore told that it was to be the final Measure. I think it will be found in Dr. Addison's speech on that occasion that he put the case for the Bill as a great consolidating Measure which was to give certainty to everybody, and which,
when its operation had ceased, would enable us to dispense with control altogether. That profession is borne out by the title of the Bill, which was described as
An Act to consolidate and amend the Law with respect to the increase of rent and recovery of possession of premises in certain cases,
and so on. Therefore, this consolidation and setting a definite limit to the period of control was understood to be the final Measure in which Parliament would deal with the topic. As we all know, it is not the final Measure. We have already, in this Session, had two Bills dealing with this subject, and, more important than either of the two Bills now before the House, there is still another to come, which threatens to overshadow in importance probably any of the Statutes which have been passed dealing with the question. Why is this Bill introduced? It is introduced because up to the present time the Government have not made up their minds as to what is their policy in regard to the continuance and extension of the amending Bill. I believe it will be agreed in all quarters of the House that such delay is absolutely inexcusable. They knew, when they took office in the autumn of last year, that this problem urgently required attention. They appointed a Committee to inquire into the matter. That Committee had a prolonged investigation, and then it reported. What have we seen since? We have seen, first of all, the Committee thrown over and their Report absolutely turned down; and, secondly, a new policy, very vague and shadowy and not clearly defined, adopted. There was some definition of it, or at least an attempted definition of it, in a period when two by-elections were going on, but, since those by-elections, the Government have been absolutely silent as to what they intended to do.
If we were to pass this Measure, we should be encouraging them to continue in their policy of silence. We should be condoning this delay and this vacillation. In these circumstances, I think the House ought to decline to give a Second Reading to this Bill. A far more important thing in relation to this matter than the Government's own futile and vacillating action is the effect of it—how it is affecting the public, and how it is going to affect the procedure of this House. We know that at the present moment there are a very large number of people outside who are anxiously waiting to know what
the Government intend to do. There are hundreds of thousands of tenants in all parts of the country, many of whom have received notices which are now coming to an end, who do not know whether under the Government's policy they are going to be protected or not. I say, therefore, that in the interests of these people it is essential that the main proposals of the Government should be placed before the House and the public without further delay. There is another reason. I have had during recent days hundreds of letters from people in different parts of the country who are affected by this Measure and who are uncertain whether they will be able to stay in their houses. They do not know whether to buy new houses. Some of them have not the means to buy new houses. They are left in this uncertainty, owing to the ineptitude of the Minister, which, if we pass this Bill, will be allowed to go on. There is the confusion of the existing law. When the principal Act was before the House, we were told that, it was going to settle the law in a definite form which would be generally understood, at least by those familiar with the interpretation of statutes. We know how ill justified that claim has been. There has been no statute in recent years which has given occasion for more litigation, which has been more difficult to interpret, and in relation to which many judges have thrown up their hands in despair of giving any accurate interpretation at all. Only this morning there is a case coming under this Act reported in the "Times," and it is very interesting to read an excerpt from the judgment of one of the judges who decided the case. It was Mr. Justice McCardie, a judge whose reputation is known to everybody as a sound lawyer, and whose words, therefore, are entitled to more than ordinary respect. He gave the second judgment in the case, and he explained why he thought it necessary to give a long judgment on this matter, although he was agreed with the judge who had given the first judgment—a most extraordinary thing—and he says:
Agreeing as he did with the substance and with the great majority of the observations made by Mr. Justice Lush, he would not have delivered a long second judgment had he not felt that the cases under the
Act were in such confusion that it was desirable that each member of the Court should state his views on the working of the Act and the effect of the decisions which had been given on the relevant sections.
When you find a learned judge talking in this way of the confusion of the cases arising under an Act which is expiring on the 24th of next month, and when we are told that the Government intend to introduce not only a Bill to continue this Act but one to amend it so as to make the law clear, I say that in all these circumstances we have an unanswerable case for calling upon the Government at once, before we pass this Measure, to say what are their proposals. How are they going to deal, not only with the more obvious questions as to the length of time during which houses are going to be controlled, but with the difficult legal questions of interpretation which have arisen in a large number of cases? That is the case for the Amendment which I put forward. There is something more. This Bill is totally unnecessary. It is a waste of the time of the House. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the procedure which was adopted in relation to the principal Act. That Act professed to deal with the term ending on the 24th June that year, the year 1920, and so far as Scotland was concerned it dealt with notices expiring on 28th May this year. But that Act was not passed until 2nd July, 1920. Consequently, for the purpose of the effective operation of the amending and continuing Act, both in England and Scotland, it is unnecessary that it should be passed before 24th June this year. All that is necessary is that similar provisions as appears in the former Act should appear in this Bill. If hon. Members care to refer to the principal Act, they will find that Section 1 of that Act deals with notices given since the 25th March, 1920. It goes back in relation to notices of increase to 25th March, 1920. Again, in Section 5, which deals with the restrictions on the right to possession, there is this provision:
Where any order or judgment has been made or given before the passing of this Act, but not executed, and, in the opinion of the Court, the order or judgment would not have been made or given if this Act had been in force at the time when such order or judgment was made or given, the Court may, on application by the tenant, rescind or vary such order or judgment in such manner as the Court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.
That provision was in the Bill as introduced, and, as a result, large numbers of people never attempted to take legal proceedings at all, and, where they did and where, in fact, they had obtained judgment, there were large numbers of cases where under this Sub-section the judgments were never allowed to become operative. I say, therefore, that there is no reason why the Government, if they know their own minds on this question, should not immediately introduce their principal Bill and have in it a Clause similar to that which I have just read to the House.
There is another thing, apart altogether from the meaning of this delay, that is the effect of it in regard to the proceedings of this House. From day to day and week to week we have the introduction of the new Bill put off, and when it comes to a discussion of this question it will be found that the Bill will be rushed through at break-neck speed. The right hon. Gentleman smiles at that suggestion, but July is just the time when that happens. He supported the Government that brought in the last Bill. He connived at the way it was passed. When was the Third Reading passed? At 4 o'clock in the morning. It is not surprising that we have had all these legal difficulties. It is not surprising that we have had case upon case dealing with an Act which is more obscure than any other Act that ever reached the Statute Book. It is the necessary result of legislation under these methods and under these conditions. The Minister of Health seems to regard this as a matter of amusement. It is a matter of amusement that you have had all these legal decisions rendered necessary, and that hundreds of thousands of humble men and women have been put to large outlays in litigation in order to have their legal rights defined. I have never seen a Minister before treating contemptuously a measure of such public interest. There is to be to-morrow before this House on the Report stage a Bill which has been rendered absolutely necessary by one of these legal decisions, a decision which has caused practically a social convulsion in the West of Scotland, and in these circumstances it seems to me you may have the same thing resulting again if you adopt the same methods.
It is for these reasons that I am asking the House to accept my Amendment. Those who support it are not opposed to
the continuance of rent restriction. We believe in the necessity of the continuance of control, and it is because we believe in its necessity and in its urgency that we are opposed to the dilatory methods which the Government are now pursuing. We believe it is essential, not only that the period of control should be defined, but that the law relating to all houses, as it affects both landlord and tenant, during the whole period of control should at once be clearly and definitely stated, so that all this confusion and uncertainty, which have caused so much trouble in the past, may be brought to an end.

Mr. LINFIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think any hon. Member who went through the last General Election should know that the people are intensely interested in the question of rent restriction. At all events, that was my experience, and it was not confined to persons who were supporting my candidature. It was shared in by all sections of the community. I am surprised to find that there should be any doubt prevailing about the subject on the opposite side of the House. Indeed, I expected and hoped we should have had very considerable support for the Amendment from that side of the House. There is very considerable anxiety prevailing amongst all sections of the community. There is a state of great uncertainty in the minds of the people. They do not know what is going to happen. That uncertainty is very largely increased by reason of the uncertainty in the minds of the Government themselves. We have had a variety of policies from the Government on this question. They have already proposed the decontrol of certain houses this very year, and this has had a very great effect on the minds of the public at large and on the by-elections. The Government has been made aware from all parts of the country of this state of feeling in the minds of householders, and I think this state of anxiety should not be allowed to continue. The Government ought to know their minds by now. I am quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman has not been in office for a very considerable time, but this subject has been before the House for a long time. The Government has been in office since last November, and its predecessor gave very considerable attention to the subject. We
were told that certain proposals had been before the Cabinet and were the decision of the Cabinet. I want to know now whether those proposals have been cast aside and whether the Government are still searching about for another policy. I think we have a right to ask that they should make up their minds immediately so that the people who are so vitally interested shall be put out of their anxiety and know what is to be their fate in the very near future.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will remember that on the First Reading I said it would not be in order on this Bill for the Minister or anyone else to discuss another Bill which is to be brought in later.

Mr. LINFIELD: I think it is due at all events to the House that we should have an explanation from the Minister as to why the Government have not stated their proposals in regard to this Measure, the Rent Restriction Act, and I invite him to state definitely and distinctly so that the country may know what the Government's policy now really is.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I am rather surprised that the Minister in charge has said nothing to us in introducing this Bill. Supposing we were inclined to take the most charitable view possible of his position, and were not inclined to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill on account of the circumstances in which he finds himself, surely it is all the more necessary that he should tell us what he proposes to do with the month's grace that he is going to get under this Bill. I do not think the House ought to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading until it gets certain pledges from the Minister. When is he going to introduce this other Bill? That is the first question. Quite obviously—and there may be something of real substance in the point made by the hon. Member behind me—if what the House is doing, assuming it passes this Bill, is putting itself absolutely in the hands of the Minister so that when we approach 31st July we shall find ourselves in this unfortunate position, that there will be three or four major Bills in front of us every one of which we want to have passed, but not one of which under the circumstances shall we be able thoroughly to discuss, and if one of those major Bills is this hitherto unintroduced
Bill, Members on no side of the House are doing their duty to themselves, to their constituents, and to this House in giving the Minister the power to put them in such an unfortunate position. Nor do I like this idea—I dislike it constitutionally—of passing a Bill after the event and then putting a Clause into it that it is going to be held as though it were passed six weeks or six months before it was passed. I cannot imagine any kind of legislation more upsetting to those who come under its influence than that. Talk about the uncertainty and the unhappiness of mind of the poor tenant at present. It is a very unfortunate way of showing sympathy for that unfortunate state of mind for the Minister to suggest that he should not disclose his Bill until a certain period, but that he should pledge himself to put a retrospective Clause into it.
What the House wants to know exactly is what is the Government's policy. If we give him this Bill, if we remove the date to the end of July, how is he going to use that month? Is he going to use it to delay or to discuss? If he is going to use that month for the purpose of delay I am going to oppose the Second Reading. If on the other hand he comes to us now—I think he ought to have done it before—and says, "I am only asking for this extra month because the state of business is such that I cannot get my new Bill through by the end of June, and I have no intention of putting a retrospective Clause into my Bill; I am asking the House for this extension of a month in order that before the end of July the House may thoroughly have discussed my new Bill," then so far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing to give him the month he asks for, but I certainly am not prepared to give him a blank cheque. Surely every Member of the House must admit that we are justified in pressing that point. Committees have been appointed, and Committees have been thrown over. Bills have been drafted, and drafted Bills have been torn up. Ministers have been appointed and have been sent to constituency after constituency and rejected time after time. The only excuse the right hon. Gentleman has now for saying, six months after the election, "We are not ready with legislation on one of these pre-eminently important points that require legislation," is that the Government has shilly-shallied,
that it could not make up its own mind first of all, and when it did make up its mind it found it had made it up wrongly. That is the only justification for asking for a Second Reading for this Bill.
What we do will depend on what the Minister pledges himself to do. I think we ought to know now. The business for next week is pretty well fixed, and it is not easy to change it in any important respect. We know we shall have to embark very soon on pretty continuous discussion on finance. Obviously there is no Member of the House who cares for the rights of Members and freedom of discussion in the House who is going to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which may mean so much slipshod work done at the last minute. Therefore the Minister ought to tell us at once when he proposes to introduce this new Bill, and in accordance with the statement which he makes will be the attitude which we shall take up regarding the Second Reading. It is a most unfortunate position in which those of us who are tenants of houses affected by this legislation find ourselves. We do not know where we stand. We do not know what we can do. The position of the tenants occupying houses subject to this series of Rent Restriction Acts is becoming intolerable. Any further delay is a source of great uneasiness, and the Government should not ask the House to consent to it. Therefore I ask the Minister to say why he is asking us to give this Bill a Second Reading? Is it merely because there is no time to get legislation passed before the end of June? That is not enough, but if he is going to put the new Bill before us and give it a Second Reading and send it to a Committee, and then let us have Report and Third Reading stage, so that the whole thing can be done with decency and order before the end of July, then I am not going to resist the Motion which he has made.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I rise at once to respond to the observations which have fallen from the Leader of the Opposition, who seemed to suggest that I was in fault in not rising at once to move the Second Reading of the Bill with a speech explaining the reasons why I did so. I would not like the hon. Member or anybody else to think that I have been guilty of any discourtesy to the House. The
only reason why I did not say anything in moving the Second Reading was because I have already made a statement as to the reasons for bringing in this Bill when I asked leave to introduce it on the 19th April. I rather fancy that the Leader of the Opposition was not present on that occasion, and owing to causes which I very much regret; but if he had been present he would not have been under the misunderstanding which obviously exists in his mind to-day, for he spoke repeatedly of the 24th June as the date upon which the present Act expired. If the date were the 24th June, perhaps it might not be necessary to introduce the present Bill. But it is not the 24th June. In Scotland, which I should have thought the Leader of the Opposition would not have forgotten, the Bill expires on the 28th May. In my statement asking leave to introduce the Bill, I pointed out that I could rely on no time after Whitsuntide and that the last day of Parliament in the present term for dealing with this question would be the 17th of the present month.
I say at once in answer to the Leader of the Opposition that there is no desire to delay, shirk or postpone coming to a decision in reference to the other Bill. This Bill is introduced solely because it is physically impossible to get the other Bill through all its stages in this House, and in another place, before the time when the Act expires. I regret that I cannot give him an exact date as to when the other Bill will be introduced. I can only assure him that that Bill is very far advanced, and will be introduced in ample time to give the House full opportunity for discussion. But I would point out that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition may not have considered that we shall shortly have the Housing Bill in Committee, and it will be necessary for the Minister to be present in Committee during the whole of the discussion on that Bill in that stage, and that we must get that out of the way before we take the Committee stage of the Rent Restrictions Bill. It does not seem to me desirable to have a Second Reading of a Bill and then have to postpone it for a long period before we can get to the Committee stage. That is a consideration which has to be taken into account in deciding the actual date of introduction.
The Leader of the Opposition has been very kind towards my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) on the back bench whose Amendment this afternoon is really a frivolous one and purely a measure of obstruction. The hon. Member has been a Member of this House for a good many years more than I have been, and he is a past master in all the arts of obstruction, to which, personally, I do not aspire, but I do care about the needs of the country if he does not, and not for any little party advantages which may arise. He will do himself and his party no good by an Amendment of this kind, which has no real substance behind it.

Mr. PRINGLE: May I let the right hon. Gentleman know that, only this morning, I had a letter from an Irish loyalist, whom he himself has betrayed, complaining about this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will not enter into a controversy with the hon. and learned Member as to the hundreds of letters which he receives on this subject. All I can say is that I have not received any letters on this subject, and it is a curious thing that, if there is any burning indignation throughout the country, there has been no complaint made to the Minister of Health. I have already pointed ou that this Measure is not introduced because the Government has not made up its mind, but because there is no time to get through a new Bill before the old one expires. The hon. Gentleman says that it was totally unnecessary, and he suggested that we should bring in a Bill which should be retrospective in its action. What an extraordinary suggestion that is to make to this House. Consider what would happen. On the 28th May the present Act comes to an end. The hon. Member suggests that we should introduce a Bill which would not become an Act until some weeks, or possibly months, after the 28th May. What is going to happen in the period between the expiry of the present Act and the passing of the new one?

Mr. PRINGLE: What happened in connection with the last Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member, speaking about what happened in connection with the Rents Restrictions
in Scotland, said that the same thing might happen again if we adopted the same method. It is precisely because of that that we are taking this action. Now that the landlords have learned what would happen if they do not comply strictly with the law, they might say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the position of the tenant during the gap between the expiry of the present Act and the passing of the new one would be a position deserving of sympathy. I do not think that anything has been added to the discussion by the hon. Member from the Labour benches who demands that the country should know what is the policy of the Government. I recommend him and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone to wait and see.

Mr. MacDONALD: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us a little bit more specifically whether we could not have the Bill printed and circulated before we adjourn for the Whitsuntide Recess or at the very outside have it ready in the first week of the re-assembling of Parliament?

Sir ALFRED MOND: I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity of answering some questions which I desire to ask. We sympathise with the Minister of Health in the difficulty in which he is placed. Anyone who has had to investigate, as I had, this thorny problem knows the difficulties involved, and the real excuse in asking for this Bill to-day is that the right hon. Gentleman feels that he has not been in office long enough himself to have made up his mind as to the new Bill which he would like to introduce at the present moment. I can well understand that, but there is no excuse for the Government which has now been in office for six months for not having a Bill ready. Nor is there any excuse for the extraordinary attack which the right hon. Gentleman has made on the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). During the many years in which I have been in this House I have never heard such a violent onslaught on any Member who is exercising a legitimate function by putting down an ordinary Amendment for the rejection of a Bill in order to make a protest. It looks as if the right hon. Gentleman regarde it as lèse majesté against himself.

Mr. PRINGLE: He will pay for it yet. He has made a great mistake.

Sir A. MOND: I was amazed at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. There have been grave doubts about this matter ever since November last and the Government has had ample time to deal with the question which is neither new nor extremely difficult. A Committee was appointed when I was in office to go into the whole question. That Committee made its Report and gave its views as to the extent to which modification of legislation was required if the present Act were to be terminated. All that was there for my successor at the time. If it had not been for the bye-elections, at which the Government were not so chary in giving information as to their intentions, we should not have to wait now for a Bill in this House explaining what it is going to do. The "Pall Mall Gazette" explained another policy, and it seems rather curious that we cannot be told now until after Whitsuntide, and that the tenants in this country are not to know, what are the secrets locked up in the mystery box of this Bill, when at one time we had a kind of kaleidoscope of proposals which rivalled the electric signs which we see at night time in Piccadilly Circus. [An HON. MEMBER: "What were you doing there?"] We are grateful for the assurance of the right hon. Member that he has got a Bill nearly ready. But are we sure that it is going to be introduced? Is he satisfied that the Cabinet will accept it? When are we going to see this Bill, and what reason is there that it should not be introduced, printed and circulated at the earliest possible opportunity?
The subject is one which is full of technical difficulties. Those who, like myself, have had to go into the matter very fully and very closely, know that there are a large number of legal and technical difficulties involved. Surely it would be a great advantage to the right hon. Gentleman himself to have the thing fully thrashed out in the country by the various interests involved, and that they should be fully cognisant of the proposals before we get to the different stages of the Bill. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will find that towards the end of the Session there is a considerable congestion of Parliamentary business. With every honest endeavour to provide ample time for discussion, that time always becomes shorter and shorter, and the period available for discussion less and less. It would surely
be to the right hon. Gentleman's advantage, and to the advantage of all of us, that he should abandon the idea of not allowing the House and the country to know the contents of the Bill until we have got through the Committee stage of a very long Housing Bill, which he will have to conduct.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we do not want to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill now before us. We feel, however, that the House has not been treated fairly in this matter. There is a very serious grievance, and not merely hon. Members here, but hundreds of people outside, are left, like Mahomet's coffin, suspended between earth and Heaven. Even landlords do not know what their future is to be, and neither do tenants. I am sure this uncertainty is impeding building enterprise, in which the right hon. Gentleman, as we all are, is very much interested. I would urge on him to get his colleagues to make up their minds as quickly as I know he can make up his own. If the Bill be introduced and printed, I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that its subsequent stages will take a very much shorter time than would otherwise be the case. We are already in the first week of May, and if the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance—that was why I rose; to enforce what my hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, that the right hon. Gentleman should produce his Bill at the earliest opportunity, and let us see it, and let the country discuss it—I, for one, would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill before the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the permission of the House, I should like to say a word in answer to the questions which have been put to me. I am very anxious to give some assurance, which will show my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) and the Leader of the Opposition that I am in earnest in what I say; and that I am not attempting, in any way, to take advantage of the Bill now before the House in order to postpone this new Measure until a time when, perhaps, there will be a great deal of pressure on the time of the House, and it may be difficult to get proper consideration for it. The House will understand, however, that there is really a double difficulty in this matter. As well as the physical difficulty, to which I have alluded, there is the fact
that I have personally been in office a very short time. Although I have got the Bill, in its outlines, complete, yet one does desire to go through every Clause again and again in order to try to see that there are not in the Bill a number of defects and blemishes for which the House would blame the Department responsible. Therefore, I do not feel I can accept the suggestion of the Opposition, that I should print and circulate this Bill just yet; but I will undertake that the Bill shall be introduced and printed, at least in the first fortnight after Whitsuntide, and I hope, if possible—I will try—to get it earlier.

Captain BENN: We are entitled to thank the right hon. Gentleman for, at any rate, giving that amount of concession to us. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that this important information has been extracted by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) as a result of an Amendment which the Minister of Health was pleased to describe as frivolous and vexatious. We know now, at any rate, that we are going to have, at a certain date, this Bill brought in and circulated. I think, under these circumstances, the hon. Member was fully justified in putting down his Amendment.

Mr. MOSLEY: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) may well be flattered by the emotional display which he has elicited from the Treasury Bench. That display has merely illustrated that he has put his finger rather forcibly on a weak spot of the present Government and has exposed to the country that, although they have been in power for a period of nearly six months, they have not yet formulated their policy on one of the most vital problems of the day, and are not yet ready to inform these unfortunate people of the position in which they are placed. Observe what the position of the Government is. It is the perennial, the recurring position of the present Government and of their predecessors. Having got into a hopeless mess and a hopeless muddle, they come down to the House, and say, "Either you must give us extraordinary powers, practically without discussion of any kind, or a lot of people in the country will be subjected to the greatest suffering and misery." The right hon. Gentleman,
having got himself and this House into this position, has the audacity to get up and say that anyone who ventures to comment on it is guilty of obstruction. Even in the long and sad history of recent years—[HON. MEEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members often see fit to contribute to our discussions a series of well-reasoned cat-calls, which they undoubtedly find the most appropriate means of communicating their opinions. Far be it from me to object to these monosyllabic interjections of the otherwise inarticulate. I will not pursue them into that intricate line of argument.

An HON. MEMBER: Give us some meat!

Mr. SHINWELL: This is both meat and drink.

Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member is not used to the King's English.

Mr. MOSLEY: I will only ask the House and the country to observe that once again the Government have got themselves into such a position as that in which we are now placed, and that as a result of their vacillating ineptitude, hundreds and thousands of people in the country are left in a state of doubt as to their future position, and are quite unaware of what plans they should adopt in their ordinary domestic life. All this has arisen purely because, for a period of six months, the right hon. Gentleman, and the Government of which he is a member, have been unable to make up their minds. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no interest displayed in the country, and that he has no letters. He has no letters, because the country has long ago made up its mind that it is quite useless, no doubt, to write to his Department; but he has had, of recent time, some very vivid illustrations of the interest taken in this subject by the country, an interest which assumed such proportions that it removed his predecessor from office. I venture to suggest that if this interest is encouraged, in the way it has been encouraged to-day, and is allowed to develop, in the proper course of time, when opportunity is offered, it will, very rightly and properly, also remove him and the Government which he represents.

Mr. PRINGLE: In view of the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has made with reference to the "obstructive and vexatious" Amend-
ment which I put before the House, and having regard to the value of that concession, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second tome.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."

Mr. PRINGLE: rose—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to press this Motion if there be any objection to it. I thought I should like to get the Bill out of the way.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE I.—(Continuance of 10 and 11 Geo. 5, c. 17.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to ask for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill as to the legal effects of this provision. There are some intricate matters regarding the application of this Bill to various classes of houses, and to different parts of the country, for example, in Section 18, Subsection (d), of the Act of 1920. It is a purely legal question. I should have thought it would have been well to have had legal gentlemen representing Scotland present. The Sub-section says:
Where any dwelling-house, to which the Acts repealed by this Act applied, is subject to a right of tenancy arising from a yearly contract or from tacit relocation, and ending at Whitsunday nineteen hundred and twenty-one, the year ending at the said term of Whitsunday shall be deemed to be a period during which, but for this Act, the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession of such dwelling-house.
That is the case of notice to a yearly tenant. There are other things arising in connection with the Bill at present before the House. You have, at the present moment, under the Common Law, several periods from which notice shall run. In regard to quarterly houses, I think 40
days are required; monthly houses require a shorter period. There are different periods in Scotland; there is one period for England, and another for Scotland.
Under the provisions of the principal Act, you had the time expiring on a term date in both countries and there was no difficulty in relation to this. Now you are extending, in regard to Scotland, from 28th May to 31st June; and in regard to England, from 24th June to 31st July. I should like to know what is the effect of extending the Act to a date which is not a term date in either country, because there is a possibility that we may not have the new Bill through by the 31st July. I think the Bill is only to be circulated a fortnight after Whitsuntide and, considering that this House will be largely engaged with finance, there will be very great difficulty in getting it through before 31st July. Therefore, on 31st July, the question may arise as to what is the effect of the notices that have been given in respect of 28th May in Scotland, and 24th June in England. It would be well that we should know what the legal effect would be, before the question that this Clause stand part of the Bill is carried.

5.0 P.M.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: Had I preceded the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I should have argued something very similar to what he did. It is very important that this matter should be cleared up. In the event of this Bill not being passed there will be a great many tenancies which will terminate by notice on 24th June. What will happen in regard to those tenancies in respect to which notice has actually been given? Will it be held that there will be another month added to the notice, and that, if it has terminated on 24th June, it will be good until the 31st July? Then again, beyond that, what will be the situation with regard to the large class of tenancies which do not expire on the 24th June in any given year? There are a great many tenancies coming under this Bill which are subject to the usual six months' notice for other quarters of the year than June. What will be the operation of the Bill with regard to these tenancies, and what will be the powers of the landlord and the rights of the tenant in regard to notices, first, on the hypothesis that the Bill is
completed before the 31st July, and, second, if it is not completed by then?

Mr. FOOT: In regard to the point which has been put by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, may I ask if some explanation can be given to tenants throughout the country on the point raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle)? I assume that, when the new Bill is introduced, a great many tenants who are at present protected will continue to have protection, but it is possible that some alteration may be made in the Bill, and by reason of that alteration some tenants at present protected may lose their protection. I believe it is intended to make some relaxation of the present law as far as the owners of houses are concerned. Many suggestions have been made in that direction. Where, for instance, a working man is the owner of a house and desires to have occupation of the house for himself, it is suggested that some further powers should be given to him greater than the powers we can exercise under the present Measure. How is a tenant who is to be deprived of the protection he has to-day to stand if this Bill passes? Has a further notice to be given if the notice to quit expires on the 24th June? Would the landlord who is to have power to enter into occupation of his own house have to give another notice? I can assure the Minister of Health that a great many people are concerned about the steps they ought to take in this matter, and if guidance could be given to them by the Solicitor-General it would be very acceptable to them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This particular point which has been raised was considered when we were drafting this Bill. I do not think any difficulty will arise, because you must take this Bill in conjunction with the new Bill which we are to introduce, and any difficulties which might arise if this were the only Bill in question can be, and will be, corrected in the new Bill. Therefore the only difficulty that could arise is the one suggested by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). If the new Bill does not become law by the 31st July, it will be very easy to overcome that difficulty if the hon. Member for Penistone will move to omit 31st July from this Bill and insert 31st August.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I cannot think that the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman is entirely satisfactory, and I do not think the Solicitor-General will agree with him that in considering the present Measure we must have regard to some Bill the terms of which are unknown to us. There is a difficulty in regard to this, because a large number of notices have been given. I want to emphasise the point which has been made as to how the tenants and landlords are to get out of the difficulty. I think if some assurance were given by the Solicitor-General that he would look into this matter further, and, if necessary, add another Clause to the Bill, it would be more satisfactory. I venture, therefore, to appeal to the Solicitor-General to at any rate state his views, which will no doubt be regarded by landlords and tenants throughout the country as coming from one who speaks with authority.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am glad if it will be any help to my hon. Friend if I speak on the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). I understand that what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said as to considering the Bill to be introduced in conjunction with the present Bill, was in answer to the hypothetical question as to what would happen if the Bill be not passed by the 31st of July. Obviously the answer to that question is that when the Bill is introduced the Bill will deal with the question and make provision for all the circumstances which may arise I think the real question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), as to what would happen in the cases where notices have been given by a landlord to re-enter upon his house at a date which will expire when the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act expires. The Committee will remember that the operative part of that Act is in the introductory part, which prevents increases of rent or notices to quit taking effect. It is provided by the last Section that the Act shall continue in force till a certain date. Under the Bill now before the Committee that Section will be amended to this extent, that the Act will now have to be read as if that Section had been enacted as containing the 31st July instead of the 24th June. Without expressing any official or certain opinion
upon it until I have had more opportunities of looking into it, I am inclined to think that the notices which have been given under which the landlord will re-enter, will not have to be repeated until the Act comes to an end. Of course, that might possibly depend on the terms of the notice, and I cannot express a general opinion upon that. What I will do, in response to the invitation and at the request of my hon. Friend, is that I will look into the question involved, in consultation with other persons, and, if necessary, see what Amendments can be made in the Bill which will safeguard the position of all the persons concerned.

Captain BENN: Apart from the legal point, which appears to me to be the possibility of a snare for us all, the important thing is to know when you are to have the discussions on this Bill. The Minister of Health has said that on the 4th June we will be in possession of the print.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A fortnight after the Recess.

Captain BENN: That is later still. On the 31st July the Bill becomes operative. If we put the date at the 31st July, the Minister will come down to the House, and say, "I am extremely sorry I am to take this Bill to-night. It is a continuation Bill, and as the Act expires on the 31st July, you cannot delay this matter, because confusion would arise." If he does not do that, he will have to make his Bill retrospective, which is objectionable and has given rise to trouble already. I think we should have from the Minister of Health or from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury some definite undertaking about the discussions on this Bill. I have seen Bills brought along late at night, and when we wanted to discuss them we were told that the Bills must be got through. The Ministers said they were very sorry if it was inconvenient, but there was a certain date when the Bill must be passed. Can the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury give us a pledge that the stages of this Bill will be taken not after 11 o'clock? I think some sort of reply to that point might be vouchsafed. We have had many Ministers of Health, and we like this one, perhaps, best of all.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope this good feeling to which the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) has referred, will remain. I cannot give an undertaking of that kind. I would only give an undertaking if I could keep it, but I cannot give the undertaking he asks for. I can only say that I am anxious that a proper opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the Bill at proper times, and I will do all I can towards that end.

Captain BENN: Is the Third Reading to be taken before the 31st July?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.

Mr. PRINGLE: There has been some indication given by the Solicitor-General that some Amendments will be put into this Bill—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not say that. My hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir Kingsley Wood) asked me if I would look into the matter. I said I would look into the matter, but that does not suggest that there will be Amendments to the Bill.

Mr. PRINGLE: But it is within the recollection of the Committee that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General said it was possible that, as a result of his looking into the matter, some Amendment may be necessary. I do not interpret as an absolute promise what was given as a contingent undertaking. In view, however, of that contingent undertaking, can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when the Amendments will be introduced into the Bill? I notice the Minister of Health, in an accession of friendliness to me which surprised and overwhelmed me, suggested that I should move an Amendment. I thought that he would have regarded such an operation on my part as vexatious and obstructive, but apparently it would be a friendly act on this occasion. As I find he is benevolent towards an Amendment such as he suggested, are we to understand the Government contemplate such an Amendment, namely, making the date 31st August? I only wish to say that if it be contemplated I will treat it with absolute benevolence.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If it appears to be necessary, as I do not anticipate it will, that Amendments will have to be put into the Bill to deal with the points raised, there will be an opportunity
in another place and the proper provision will be made. That is what. I tried to say, and I now repeat it.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask the Solicitor-General, before he comes to a final conclusion, if he will consult the Scottish Law Officers? As he well knows, and as the House knows, considerable trouble has arisen from this source.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes. I also said that I would consider the matter in consultation with other persons.

Mr. SHINWELL: I did not understand other persons included those who represented the Scottish Office, but, if that is so, I accept it.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 (Short title and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. PRINGLE: I do not wish to delay the House in coming to a decision, but I wish to refer to that part of his speech in which the Minister of Health alluded to a substantial case which I raised on the Second Reading as a vexatious and obstructive proceeding. I want to point the moral. A single Member of the House could have prevented the Committee stage being taken to-day, and the Government would have got no more than the Second Reading, for no undertaking was given from any part of the House that more than the Second Reading would be given. It was only because the Minister was able to make some announcement in relation to the publication of the Government's proposals that the Government have been able to get the further stages of the Bill without delay.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

HOUSING, ETC. (No. 2) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to the housing of the working classes (including the amendment and revocation of building bye-laws), town planning,
and the acquisition of small dwellings, it is expedient to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of contributions towards the expenses incurred in connection with the provision of houses of such type and size and completed within such time as may be mentioned in the said Act not exceeding a sum equal to six pounds for each house in respect of which a contribution is made payable annually for a period not exceeding twenty years;
(b) of contributions not exceeding in any case one-half of the estimated average annual loss likely to be incurred, towards the expenses incurred in connection with the carrying out of rehousing schemes, and towards expenses incurred under Sub-section (1) of Section eleven of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919;
(c)of such additional percentage of the annual loan charges referred to in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section seven and in Sub-section (2) of Section nineteen of the Housing. Town Planning, etc. Act, 1919, and the corresponding provisions of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, as the Treasury may approve."

Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment which I shall call is that in the name of the hon. Member for the Louth Division (Mrs. Wintringham).

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "contributions" to insert the words
to local authorities with a population exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand.
During the earlier part of the Debate the Minister of Health remarked that this Bill was not a solution of the housing problem, but was merely a contribution. As it stands, it certainly is a contribution to the problem of housing in towns, but it is not of any real value to the rural districts. It means that houses will not be built in country areas, and that, if they are not built, the people living in the country districts will be taxed in order to provide the houses for the towns. We do not mind the towns having their houses, but we in the rural districts wish to have a share of the plunder. I represent a rural district in which there are 163 villages. On all hands it is agreed that the loss on the building of houses will be greater in the case of rural authorities. The subsidy of £6 will not be sufficient, and because the wages in
such districts are so low—the case was admirably put by the right hon. Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans)—economic rents cannot be paid by the agricultural worker. I ask the Minister of Health, therefore, whether he cannot change his attitude. He gave a half-promise that in future, if this legislation did not function in the rural districts, some change might be made. I ask, Why cannot that change be made now? In 1913 we were told that there was a shortage of 120,000 houses. For half a century no houses have been built, except by the generosity of the landed proprietors or the self-interest of the farmers. But it was never an economic proposition to build houses in the rural districts.
It has been said that perhaps the landowner would continue to build. We cannot expect the landowner to continue to build at a loss, and the labourer is too poor to pay an economic rent. Therefore, the labourer gets no further forward. We do not want the town dweller to be penalised, but we do want the agricultural worker to obtain some of the benefits of the Bill. The problem is just as real and just as human in the country districts as in the towns. In many country districts housing conditions are appalling. That statement brings me to a consideration of what those conditions are. What is the smallest space in which a family can be accommodated? The proposal of 850 feet of floor space is quite insufficient for a large family. It may suffice where there are only a mother and father and one child, but where there are a mother and father and four or five children it is totally inadequate. The Minister has suggested that with 850 feet of floor space it is possible to fit up a scullery, kitchen, parlour, three bedrooms and a bathroom.
I would like to examine the size of the different rooms. One bedroom is of the dimensions of 10 feet 6 inches by 6 feet 10 inches. I visualised that room in my mind, and I compared it with the Table in front of the Treasury bench, and afterwards I was interested to go down and measure the Table. I found that the smallest bedroom would be half-a-foot less in length than the Table. I ask the Minister, how would it be possible to use such a room as a bedroom for the accommodation of two girls or two boys? I cannot see how the furniture could be
placed in it. You would have a bed 6 feet long, and in addition to that there would have to be a couple of chairs and a chest of drawers or some place in which to hang clothes. Even if the furniture could be got in, we have to consider the woman who has to clean the room. How is she to remove the furniture in order to keep the room clean and healthy? Consider also the question of health if such a room contained a bed for the accommodation of two children. How could one encourage people to enjoy the benefits of more fresh air? Certainly two children accommodated in such a room could not have the window open. I find that the other bedrooms will be 11 feet 4½ inches by 13 feet 6½ inches and 12 feet 2½ inches by 9 feet 3½ inches. Those would have to accommodate the parents and other children and perhaps a baby. Again, I do not see how there could be much room for the parents and the baby and cradle, and other furniture.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I am afraid that a discussion of types of houses will not be in order on this Amendment. The Amendment raises the question whether the larger local authorities only are to have the subsidy, and discussion of the type of houses is outside the purview of the Amendment.

Captain BENN: Would such a discussion be in order on the Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Louth, which stands next on the Order Paper—[In paragraph (a) to leave out the words "of such type and size and completed within such time as may be mentioned in the said Act"]?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would not like to say at the moment. It is probable that Mr. Speaker will return before that Amendment is called.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The object of this Amendment is to exclude from the Financial Resolution districts with less than 250,000 population, and one of the reasons for it is not only that the financial aid proposed is inadequate, but that the size and type of houses are inadequate. The size and type of houses are named in the Financial Resolution.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that if I took the view of the hon. Member the whole of the Bill could be discussed on this Amendment. Discussion
must be confined to the question as to which of the local authorities are to carry out the provisions of the Bill.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I bow to your ruling, but I would like to say that I have tried on three occasions to speak on this question of the size of the rooms, because I have felt it is a question about which I know something. I will conclude by asking the Minister of Health to consider the matter from the rural point of view. If he does not do so there will be a wave of condemnation which will sweep through the rural districts. We in the rural districts have the feeling that we do not always get justice and fair play, but we want to feel that we are to have fair play in this instance. If this Bill can be strengthened it will be of great value to the country districts.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I trust that the Minister will realise that I do not second the Amendment because of any feeling of antagonism to the Bill. I voted for the Second Reading, and I am intensely anxious that we should get houses built. The chief reason that prompted me to vote for the Second Reading was the statement made by the learned Attorney-General. I may be wrong in my interpretation of what he said, but at the end of his speech he seemed to me to indicate that the Minister of Health intended to make some concession in the direction of providing means whereby larger houses could be built. To me it is a matter of great disappointment that so far we have had no hint that that is to be the case. There is no issue of principle between us and the Minister; so far as I understand the position, it is purely one of degree. The Government do not say that this is not a national matter, and that, therefore, they have no responsibility. They have accepted responsibility and have produced this Bill. Our suggestion is that if it is worthy for the Government to undertake this scheme at all, they should do it as worthily as possible and really try to meet the situation.
During the Committee stage of this Resolution and also in a speech of the Mover of the Amendment we have had indications that in a very large part of the country, this Bill will not operate, or, at any rate, will only operate on a
scale so small as not to meet the expectations of the people. Consequently the object we have in view is not to oppose the right hon. Gentleman, but to support him and help him so far as we can by expressing the public opinion. If he found it possible to extend the subsidy he would have the support of a very large section of this House — I believe the majority on both sides of the House—because there is in the House an intense desire to meet the demands which are coming right and left from all parts of the country that the people should be properly housed. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman may recollect certain words which, at the time, struck me as being very significant and which were used on the occasion of the opening of certain great municipal buildings. They were to the following effect:
Institutions which are meanly housed are meanly esteemed.
I should be sorry if the charge could be brought against the Members of this House that, because the people were meanly esteemed by us, we were content, that they should be meanly housed. I am satisfied that is not the wish of the right hon. Gentleman. As a near neighbour of his I know something of his public attitude, and I know how sincerely he has worked in municipal matters and how earnestly he desires to provide houses for the people. Therefore, what I am trying to do is to help him, so far as is in my power, to make the Bill a real success. He seems to think that the Bill is only a temporary Measure and that the points we raise are not applicable. But I suggest and I think the right hon. Gentleman's great knowledge of municipal affairs will enable him to see, that if this Bill operates for two years it may, to a large extent, stereotype the kind of houses which the people are compelled to inhabit. Holding that view, I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that, he should at this stage reconsider the course he has taken in reference to the subsidy. This is our last opportunity. This Resolution is the crux of the Bill. If it passes in its present form, and the Bill goes into Committee, I do not see how it will be in any way practicable or possible to carry out what we understood to be the idea expressed by the learned Attorney-General in his speech on the Second Reading. It seems to me that to carry out that idea, to make the housing scheme effective and to give
the people houses in which they can be comfortable and have a reasonable degree of decency—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the Resolution as a whole, but the Amendment before the House is to confine the subsidy to the larger municipalities.

Mr. THORNE: Of course I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I understand that on this Amendment I was permitted to show that, for the great bulk of the community, the proposal will not be effective. My point is that while it may be effective for the very large municipalities, where we understand same kind of an arrangement has been made with the right hon. Gentleman, with which we do not wish to interfere, yet that generally, throughout the country, satisfactory results will not be achieved. My point is that such will be the case in Scotland and in many of the country districts of England. In my own constituency—because I do not represent Wolverhampton as a whole but chiefly a district outside the borough—I do not think for a moment that the Bill and the subsidy really and fairly meet the case. The right hon. Gentleman has come to a position of great responsibility at the present time, and it is because I sincerely hope that he may achieve practical results and provide houses suitable for the people to live in, that I am here, seconding this Amendment. I conclude by saying again what I said before, that I am seconding the Amendment not to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's proposal but to do all that in me lies to support the object which he has in view.

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: It must be generally admitted, with regard to the real rural districts, that this is a temporary Bill, and a partial Bill, and will not do much to solve the housing problem there. I do not think the Minister or his advisers expected hat it would, because the housing problem in the rural districts is not so much one of providing houses at 5s. or 6s. or 7s., but of providing the money to replace houses which are now out of repair and in an insanitary condition and which are let at rents of is. 6d., 2s. and 3s. It comes to a question of subsidising wages more than of building houses at an economic rent, and any subsidy that was offered would not
tempt the rural district councils to build unless it was almost on the same scale as the subsidy in the Addison scheme. The houses built under the Addison scheme did not directly help the agricultural labourer. When one sees a row of 8 or 10 houses built under the Addison scheme, one generally finds that very few agricultural labourers are living in that row. The houses are occupied by people like insurance agents, post office engineers possibly, and men working in neighbouring towns who go to their work each day on bicycles. The scheme did very little to solve the problem of finding houses for the agricultural labourers.
I realise that this Bill may do a great deal to help housing in the larger centres. It may do something to help schemes in rapidly developing colliery districts, where the subsidy will be of assistance to newly formed public utility societies in getting on rapidly with their work. That, I look upon as being all to the good. With regard to the rural districts, I suggest that we should look on this as a temporary scheme, and as one which is not going to do anything for the agricultural labourer, but that we should allow this scheme to have an opportunity of working for a short time. When it is seen how much money is being found by the State towards subsidising the urban areas, then the rural areas will have the right to claim that a certain amount of money should come to them. Let it become known first how much is going to the local authorities of the big areas and to what extent they are utilising the subsidy, and going forward with the work. Then there would be a clearer case for the rural people to say they wanted a share of money—an equivalent share according to population. In that way they could start schemes, and though they might have to take a smaller number of houses, there would be a proportionately larger subsidy to meet the needs of the rural areas. I do not know whether I have been able to make the point clear.

Mr. ROYCE: No, you have not.

Mr. ROBERTS: I am very sorry I have not been able to do so. I will try again. In order to build houses in rural areas for agricultural labourers a larger sum of money is required from the Government than is required in big towns. If we say that £1,000 is going
to a certain population in the town, and that that £1,000 will build so many houses, my suggestion is that a similar £1,000 should go to a similar population spread over a rural area. It will probably mean that only half the number of houses will be built, but the subsidy per house will be greater than in the town and the burden on the local authority will be less. As a result, of course, there would be a less number of houses to the population, than in the town. I think there is more commonsense in that suggestion than hon. Members opposite pretend to see, because the urgency of finding houses for the people to live in is greater in the towns than in the country. [HON. MEMBERS "Why?"] Because in the towns there are far more people living two or three families to the house than there are in the country. The problem in the country is that so many of the houses are falling to pieces, and must be replaced. In the country districts the population, I am sorry to say, has not increased but decreased. Therefore, the housing problem is those districts is not one of preparing for an increasing population because I am afraid it will not increase, but of rehousing the people who are badly housed at the present time. I hope I have now succeeded in making my suggestion clear to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: Along with other hon. Members on this side of the House, I listened to the whole Debate on this subject on Monday evening, and to the reply of the Minister of Health. While the right hon. Gentleman's reply was generally against the arguments directed from this side, he left a very distinct impression on our minds that this question was to be further considered and that, probably, any device which could possibly be introduced would be expounded by him, or by some other Member of the Government, at the earliest possible moment. Our difficulty to-night is that this is the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, and we are parting with the Resolution which is fundamental to the whole Bill, and which will determine the whole of our proceedings in Committee. This is the last opportunity of making any effective protest on this subject. We are dealing on this
Amendment with the question as between rural areas and urban areas with a population of over 250,000—though I do not claim that as a hard and fast line, and the figure has merely been put into the Amendment for the purposes of discussion. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was really a question of the flat rate as a whole. He did not defend the flat rate as a proposition; he admitted it might involve all kinds of difficulties and anomalies, but he said that a flat rate had been agreed upon, that the Government were not going back upon it, and that it was the best they could do under this Bill. If that be the state of affairs, may we not ask the right hon. Gentleman, at this final stage, whether there are any other steps he can take to give us a reasonable chance of seeing houses erected in the rural districts and the smaller urban districts?
The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly asked us for any constructive suggestions we could make. For the purposes of reply, I am going to put to him at least two suggestions which I think have an important bearing on the problem. In the first place, it is perfectly clear that if houses are to be erected, in the rural and smaller urban districts, their erection must be preceded by some attention to the existing rating system. That is under consideration in Scotland, and I think also in England at the present time, and it is reasonable to ask the Minister whether he intends to take any steps under that head, as a preliminary part of his effort to apply this Measure to the rural and smaller urban districts. In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the smaller local authorities will require to have recourse to the Public Works Loans Commissioners for a great deal of the money which they are going to use under these housing schemes. At the present time these small authorities are at a distinct disadvantage in getting money as compared with the larger authorities. In practice, the larger local authorities do not repair to the Public Works Loans Commissioners at all, and we showed in previous Debates that they were able to get money in many cases at 3½ per cent., and most of them at least at 4 per cent., but the smaller local authorities, which have to go to the Public Works Loans Commissioners, cannot get money at less than 5 per cent.
under their rules. Not only that—and attention was drawn to this a little earlier in the discussion—but the Loans Commissioners generally lay it down that the loan in the case of the smaller local authorities must run for the full period; that is to say, that there cannot be repayment before the expiry of the period, which is generally a long one, originally fixed.
That means that the smaller local authorities, and including many of the smaller urban authorities, are at a distinct disadvantage, and that is an extra load which they are going to carry under this £6 flat rate subsidy as applied to the housing schemes under this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman could say to us tonight that he intends, in the smaller urban districts and in the rural districts, to precede this Measure with reform in two directions, in the direction, first, of rating and, secondly, in the rules under which the Public Works Loans Commissioners now lend money to these authorities, I would be prepared to say that in part—I do not go beyond that—some of the difficulty under this part of the Measure might be met, but so far we have had no proposal of that kind, and I am sure that, in the light of what he himself said on Monday evening, the Minister of Health will agree that the difficulties of the smaller authorities are greater than even the most extreme statements on this side of the House have described them.
I press these considerations, because I want to avoid one very lamentable result under this Bill. Many of us are opposed to the Bill, but let me say at once that, if the Bill is passed, we shall do our best in the localities to see that it is carried out for what it is worth. After all, we want to see housing, and we do not want merely to score debating points, but this lamentable result is quite possible, that you will actually, under the financial structure of this Bill, stimulate building by some of the local authorities in the large centres, but you will make it more or less impossible in the smaller areas, and I think that will encourage indirectly the tendency of drift from country to town. The country has had quite enough of that in the past. Do not let us contribute indirectly to that sad state of affairs under the financial provisions of this Bill. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a reply on those two points, which
I think are of a constructive character, namely, rating and the system of grants to local authorities by the Public Works Loans Commissioners, and so make the scheme of this part of the Bill better than it is now.

Sir P. PILDITCH: The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has, like myself, the inveterate habit of speaking to the point and of addressing his remarks to the Amendment before us. I am not sure that it always pays, but that is the fact, and may I, with all respect to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, ask them whether they really appreciate what would happen if the Amendment that they propose, but to which neither of them spoke very closely, were carried. The Amendment would cut out of the Bill every district in the country except those with a population of over 250,000. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh seemed to think that that meant merely a question as between the rural districts and the great urban centres, but that is not so. There are a great many other districts in the country, the class of district which I represent, suburban districts, which would certainly not come within the category of those not having more than 250,000 population, and if this particular Amendment were carried—and I can hardly believe that it is seriously meant—it would mean that not only would the rural districts be cut out of the Bill, which some hon. Members seem to think would not matter very much, because they do not expect the rural districts to get much out of it, but also all that great mass of districts, such as the one I represent, that do not happen to be within the very few great cities of the country would be absolutely cut out of the Bill. There is another Amendment lower down on the Paper which I am trying to understand, but I have not yet succeeded. All that that later Amendment says is:
in connection with the provision, by local authorities with a population not exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand, of houses of such type and size and completed within such time as may be mentioned in the said Act.
Therefore, if these Amendments were carried, there would be nothing in the Bill, when passed, which would provide the class of house or the conditions and terms under which that class of house could
be built for such persons as my constituents.

Mr. T. THOMSON: If the hon. Member looks at the last Amendment, to which he has referred, it provides that the town he represents would get, not nothing, but half and half. Instead of coming under the £6 grant, it would get the 50–50 grant.

Sir P. PILDITCH: That does not necessarily follow. There are a good many districts in this country which will get off with less than the 50–50. I have seen the figures worked out for some districts which anticipate getting a good many houses built with the aid of the £6 subsidy from the State alone, with very little in addition to it, and in connection with that, as the suggestion has been made that it would be beneficial to get the 50–50 grant, I should like to point out that the London County Council, in their observations on the Bill—which were really, as a matter of fact, more favourable than we were led to believe by quotations given from a report of theirs, I think it was yesterday—indicate quite clearly that whilst at first they might have to pay something like £8 or £9 against the £6 provided by the Government, before very long the amount of their contribution would come down to £3 14s. 6d. and to £4 12s. 5d., at periods when their road debt and their sewers debt were wiped off.

Captain W. BENN: Is it not a fact that they went on to say in that report that when the Government subsidy ceased they would have to bear the whole of the substantial deficit themselves?

Sir P. PILDITCH: Absolutely, but I am giving the amount of the deficit after the Government subsidy has ceased in the third 10 years. In the second 10 years, the road debt having been partly paid off, they would only be saddled with £3 14s. 6d.

Mr. GILBERT: What about the last 10 years?

Sir P. PILDITCH: It would then be £4 12s. 5d. However, I do not want to labour these details, but the acceptance of this Amendment as it stands would simply mean that, in addition to the rural areas, immense masses of districts throughout the country would be excluded from the Bill. As far as my experience
goes, most people think it is a useful Bill, as far as it goes, and I do not think the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment are really doing much of a service in proposing such an Amendment, if it is really meant to be taken seriously.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) has, I think, done us a service in pointing out that this Amendment must be read and taken with the other Amendment that he quoted, and these two Amendments are really part of a scheme which, under the strict limits of order imposed by this discussion, we venture to put to the Minister of Health. We are not proposing merely to limit the subsidy of £6 to the populations exceeding 250,000, but we also have an alternative plan for those populations under the 250,000 limit. We understand that the larger boroughs, with a population of 250,000, have made their bargain with the Minister of Health, and that he could not get away from that, even if he wished to do so. So be it, but we venture to put it to the Minister that, by his own admission and the admission of his supporters, there is a large area of the country where this Bill is not going to work at all. We suggest that the people in that area will do very well indeed to accept our suggestion that in that area it should be 50–50, a share between the localities and the State of half the cost, and I venture to say that, without going into those figures, I think even the larger boroughs below the 250,000 population would probably do a great deal better over the whole period of 60 years if they accepted our suggestion of abandoning the fixed £6 subsidy and taking this 50–50 arrangement.
I should like to point out to the House that this is not exactly the same Amendment as was discussed in Committee. It comes in at a different place, and it provides a consistent scheme, in so far as we can make it consistent. We should like it to have been more adequate, of course, but it is no use our trying to make suggestions, variants, and additions. Directly you begin to do that, as I know from experience, you are called to order, and you transgress the rule allowed in speaking in this House. It is not for the critics of this scheme of the Government to propose the additions. It is, we think, for the Minister himself to propose them,
and I venture to think he ought to propose them now. I think the whole position is deplorable. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) spoke just now. I do not know whether the Government, were very grateful for his support, but certainly we were. He gave away the case against this Amendment. He said in so many words that the Bill admittedly will not do anything for the rural districts, and that they can wait. There are hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House who claim to be in an especial degree the champions of the countryside, the advocates of the interests of rural areas. I think it is about time that they put some pressure on the Minister of Health. He does not seem to be in an absolutely unyielding mood, for he admitted the case, and it is really a very strong case.
6.0 P.M.
Anyone who knows what the problem of housing is, must, I think, be impressed by a sense of the seriousness of it. Houses have not been built in the country for years past, and, looking ahead 10 or 20 years, if nothing is to be done, you will have an absolute collapse of rural housing. People say that the population is not increasing in the rural districts. I think the population increases. I do not think there is any lack of size of the family, but the people who live there drift away, emigrate and go into the towns, very largely because there are no houses being built. I do not wonder that the Minister of Health looks at this question with the eyes of one who has had great municipal experience. He has achieved his successes in dealing with the towns. Country districts are an afterthought with him. Jam for them to-morrow, but certainly not jam to-day. They can perform, meanwhile, a very useful function—they can be taxed. Of course, if the private owner puts up houses to pay 1½ per cent., the Government will take their toll of the revenue coming from the houses, so that the Government do not do their duty in the rural areas. They admit that they leave it to other people to do it, and the other people say they cannot do it.
Surely that is an impossible position in which to leave the question. It is no use saying that the thing may be dealt with two years hence, and giving mere vague hopes and promises of that kind.
Is it beyond the power of the Minister of Health to do something in this Bill? He admits the gap, and that the problem is made worse by the invasion of the town dwellers into the country districts. I think there is an uneasy feeling. I do not want to score points on this Bill against the Minister of Health. I voted for it. I am only anxious by pressure, and, I hope, by eliciting the pressure of those who have more influence with the right hon. Gentleman than I can hope to have, to do something to prevent the case of the countryside going by default. I believe, as a matter of fact, if you have this scheme, under which, in the rural districts, the costs will be shared between the rural district council and the State, you may do something. I think that is the only scheme which we thought we could put forward within the terms of the Resolution, but it does not exhaust the possibilities. It, is for the Minister himself, when he admits there is this gap in his Bill, when he admits there is this area where it will not work, where there is a real crying necessity for it, where there is overcrowding, and in some districts as high a rate of tuberculosis as there is in the towns, where you have conditions as to water supply which some of us know in the country districts—you cannot leave all that on one side, and say it is a temporary Bill, and take the taxes out of the country districts to meet the cost of the towns. Really, that is an impossible position.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that we will be able to deal with it in Standing Committee. I think, before a, Bill goes forth shackled by the terms of this Money Resolution, which may, unless it be extended in some way or other, and some more latitude be given, make it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman, even if he wishes, to do something at a later stage. I put it to him that it is the duty of the Minister of Health, who is as much responsible for the country districts as for the towns, to make some further proposal. It is impossible at this day to leave this simply to the tender mercies of the squire, who may, in a few cases, be able to deal with the matter, but who certainly cannot cope with the whole requirements, and it is quite clear, by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters, that there is this gap which ought to be filled. We invite him to
do something to meet the case. If our scheme is a bad one, it is open to him to produce a better.

Mr. PRETYMAN: This Amendment is one with which the rural areas are very intimately concerned. The matter has been considered by the Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons this afternoon, and I am authorised to speak on their behalf. What we feel about it is this. We do not want to put our case too high. It would not be right to say that the rural districts would get no benefit at all out of the Bill as it stands, putting aside the point dealt with by the hon. Gentleman opposite of houses which might be built by private owners. I quite understand it would not be right to be satisfied in any way with this Bill, because it merely facilitated building by private owners, which, under present circumstances, can only cover a small area indeed, and I do not pin my faith to that at all. There is one direction in which this Bill will be of use to rural areas, although of much less advantage than to large urban areas. It is this. The hon. Gentleman said that houses in villages were considerably occupied by town dwellers. Town dwellers can pay the higher rent, and so can a good many other people who live in rural areas other than agricultural labourers. Houses which ought to be occupied by agricultural labourers, or would be occupied by agricultural labourers, who can only pay low rents, are not now available, because the town dwellers and officials of local authorities, policemen, postmen, railway servants and others, who are receiving a much higher wage, are occupying those houses, and if additional houses were built for the occupation of these town dwellers and others, it would set free houses at lower rents which would be available for agricultural labourers.
To that extent, therefore, the Bill will help the rural areas, but when all that is said, it is quite clear that the advantage to the rural areas will be a very great deal less than the advantage to the large industrial communities. But Where we differ from the hon. Gentlemen opposite is as to the Government being very strongly pressed, and our making it a sine qua non that this should be included in this Bill, because this Bill is a flat-rate Bill, and, as the right hon. Gentleman
pointed out the day before yesterday, once you depart from a flat rate, and if, for instance, you accept the suggestion which is just made, that in this development you should divide a loss, it involves setting up the whole machinery of supervision centrally, the Ministry of Health has to satisfy itself of the measure taken, and the whole administrative machinery has to be set to work by the local authorities for the purpose. That, of course, would be very expensive, and entirely outside the definite proposals of this Bill as it stands.
Therefore, if the Minister will admit, as I think he has admitted, that the rural districts do suffer a considerable disability under this Bill, in that they will pay the same rate of taxation, whereas they will receive a considerably less benefit, if he will tell us that this Bill is only regarded as part of a larger and more general scheme, and that he recognises that something is due to the rural districts, we do not want to oppose this Bill, because we are not gaining as much as we ought under it, and so injure in any way the large communities which we know want this Bill very badly. We do not want to take up a dog-in-the-manger attitude about this at all, and, therefore, we desire to support the Bill on general grounds, in the interests of the industrial communities. We are always asking industrial communities to recognise the disabilities of agriculture, and are continually pressing upon them to consider us, and saying that they do not consider us enough. Therefore, I do not think it would be a reasonable attitude to adopt to say, "We will not let you have this, because it does not benefit, us as much as it does you." We help them now, and we shall want to ask them to help us.
That is really our attitude on this question. But I do most earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a very definite undertaking that he will, to the best of his ability, and at the earliest possible moment, make good to us the loss which we shall suffer under this. I do think you want a separate Bill, the problem is such a different one. It was pointed out in Committee upstairs that it is clearly beyond the wit of man to devise a flat rate which will apply to the large urban communities and also to scattered rural districts. If you are to
produce a Bill which is to give equal conditions to both sections of the community, it is perfectly clear that it cannot be a flat rate Bill. But this is a flat rate Bill. It is being dealt with as a flat rate Bill, and you have either to alter the whole construction of the Bill, and go on totally different lines—and I can understand a good many hon. Members would find fresh objections to another Bill of that kind—which would involve great delay in these large communities getting what they want. Therefore, taking it on these lines, the policy of the Agricultural Committee is to support this Bill for the benefit of the community as a whole, only on condition that it is recognised by the Government that we are not getting our fair share out of it as a general housing measure, and on their undertaking that they will make that good at the earliest possible moment.

Captain BENN: I am not quite sure that I understood the position of the Agricultural Committee as voiced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). He says this is a flat-rate Bill, and, therefore, we cannot amend it. But that is what we are engaged in doing. The Amendment of my hon. Friends purports to do precisely what the right hon. Gentleman says requires doing, namely, to make this an urban Bill, and have a separate Bill for rural districts. We say that we think it it unsuitable not only for rural districts, but for Scottish districts as well, and therefore we say, give us a separate Measure for them. That is what I understand the right hon. Gentleman proposes, and, therefore, I shall be greatly surprised if he and those who follow him do not come into the Lobby with us, and support an Amendment which is not a wrecking Amendment. No one in the party with which I am associated desires to wreck the Bill. We merely desire to confine it to those districts to which it is suited. What is our proposal? We are proposing by this Amendment and subsequent Amendments to make the flat rate apply to the urban districts, the bigger ones saying that they can work under the scheme. We are proposing as regards rural districts and Scotland to put them under the half-and-half arrangement—the 50 per cent. arrangement. What is the objection to that proposal?
I confess my experience is small, but I am not very much impressed by the argument of the Minister of Health that this would involve an infinitesimal central control. What about the rehousing and the demolition of slum property in which 50 per cent. of the expense is borne by the Ministry? Does that involve this meticulous and infinitesimal control in regard to the scheme of expenditure? Apparently not! If you have the 50 per cent. in respect to a suitable arrangement for clearing slum areas, why cannot something of the kind be adopted without the putting up of great new Departments and the employment of many men in them for the rural districts—that is for the districts which cannot work on the flat-rate scheme? The Minister of Health has two answers to that point. First of all, he says that he has never given us too rosy or exaggerated promises as to what the Bill will do. For that I admire him. We have had, perhaps for the moment, enough of the stormy seas and the mists on the mountains. That sort of thing has been rather overdone in the past, for when the seas have calmed and the mists have cleared away it has not always been found that the boat has got safely to harbour, nor, to vary the simile, have we got houses at the end. I like the frankness of the right hon. Gentleman, but at the same time it is not very comforting to people who really want to see something done and believe it is possible for something to be done.
What is the reason that this Bill cannot be turned really into a—I will not say a bountiful—but a generous Measure of housing reform for the rural districts? The Minister says two things. The first is that we may rely upon the squire or the landowner to build the cottages. That is not a very desirable way of getting houses in connection with farms, for the owner, may have to put them up for his own employés, and it is not desirable, nor should we be very anxious, towards putting a man into the possession of power, sometimes called tyranny, in the rural districts, which is possessed by the man who owns the only houses in which the rural labourer can live! The second contribution of the right hon. Gentleman was that in the future, if this Bill fails, something else will be done. On that rather vague and shadowy premise the right hon. Gentleman founds his determination
not to support the Amendment. Why wait for the future? I understand the right hon. Gentleman's determination is to get as many houses built as the conditions of labour admit, that is to say, the number of men available. By this Bill all you will do is to draw upon the rural districts for the building operatives and other workers and bring them into the town, so that they will not be in the place where they might be used for building their own houses. There is another point which I wish to impress on the Minister of Health, and that is that so long as there is a scarcity of houses in the rural districts so long will rent control continue. The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman said, "I join with the housing reformers in the cry of 'Houses first, houses before decontrol,'" but even that slogan was not very triumphant. Until you have got more houses you cannot decontrol rents. Therefore to await for the future merely means that you are forcing us to remain in this morass of Government interference with rents which is causing so much difficulty in housing. I say, therefore, that the Minister would be well-advised to consider whether it is not possible now to deal with the rural areas and the Scottish points mentioned by various spokesmen who have declared that under this Bill nothing can be done.
I should like also to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many houses we may expect to get annually under this Bill? I think that is a fair question, which surely he can answer! Will he tell us in his reply what is his estimate of the number of houses which will be built under the provisions of this Bill? He must have some estimate. It cannot be that he is just going to wait and see how things shape. He will before long have to present to Parliament a Supplementary Estimate because I find nothing in the main Estimate for this grant. He has got to arrange that the money shall be forthcoming, and, therefore, his Department must know perfectly well, that is to say somebody there must know, how many houses, roughly, are going to be built, and what will be the distribution of them. If he will give us these figures we shall know whether or not our contention that for the rural areas this Bill is insufficient is or is not well founded. If, as we believe, our contention is well founded, I would particularly
urge upon the right hon. Gentleman again to consider whether it is not possible so to enlarge or to amend this Financial Resolution—which is the last word this House will have upon the matter—for once we pass this iron law in which we have to frame the legislation it is useless to say anything. I, therefore, plead with him whether before this passes, and settles the matter for the future, he could not so enlarge or amend the Resolution in the way suggested to deal with the matters brought before him.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps it will be to the convenience of the House if I rise at this point to make some reply to the criticisms and suggestions which have come from various quarters of the House. I am afraid that I cannot follow up the remarks of the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) owing to the ruling of the Chair. I must, therefore, leave the point she put for consideration on some other occasion. Before I come to the question of the rural areas and the interesting suggestions put forward by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite I should like, first of all, to say a word upon what fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne). I am sure he will believe that I accept with a feeling of gratitude his kindly expressions towards myself and his belief in my sincerity. I do not, however, quite follow what he had in his mind when he said that my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General left upon him the impression that the subsidy was likely to be increased in respect to certain districts. I do not think, if he will again read the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend, that he will find any words which would bear out an assumption of that kind. What the Attorney-General did say was that the question of the area of the houses taken within the ambit of subsidies would be considered. I do not think that he will find any suggestion that the amount—

Mr. G. THORNE: What I had in my mind was that what the Attorney-General said could not be given practical effect without the subsidy being in some way increased.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I think my right hon. and learned Friend said was that the ambit of the scheme might be rearranged, but, so far from the subsidy being increased, that you might at
the same time have to decrease the amount. The hon. Gentleman asks why we cannot deal worthily with the subject, and why we should attempt to house our people meanly. I am sure he understands that the reason for any limitation at all is not a desire to lower the standard of housing. It is to provide houses for which the people we expect to live in them can afford to pay rent. I do think that that is a condition that too often is lost sight of. It is all very well to say that we ought to build better houses than those we are providing. I am sure we would wish that such houses will be put up, but we have to face the fact—it is not the slightest use burying our head in the sand—that if we only put up the sort of houses we should like the people to live in, they would have to take in lodgers to be able to make up the rent.
I come at once to the larger general question which has been raised by this Amendment, namely, the relative position of the rural areas and the towns. I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that because I have had some experience of the local administration of towns, therefore I have no thought for the country; or even that I have no knowledge of the country. Though I do not profess to be an expert on the subject, I do know something of the conditions in the country, and I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) make the point which I had intended to make the day before yesterday, but which somehow slipped my memory when I was on my legs. In the course of my observations, I pointed out that overcrowding in villages was to-day largely caused by the fact that there had been a migration into the villages from the towns.

Captain BERKELEY: Partly!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, partly. What I had intended to say was that I did not admit that under the Bill we are not doing anything for the country, because, in so far as by our proposals we can relieve the pressure in the towns, we will relieve the pressure in the villages. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) that there were two ways in which we could mitigate the hardships in the rural areas. One of his points was in relation to rating reform. I confess that I did not quite appreciate what he had in his
mind. I thought when he began he was referring to the relief to be afforded in the matter of the rating of agricultural land. That would not apply in this case. If the hon. Gentleman had only in mind a measure of general rating reform, of which some mention has been made in this House from time to time, then I can tell him I do not see any possibility of a measure of that magnitude and complexity being introduced in time to be of much service in this case. I wonder, again, whether he has quite appreciated the present situation in regard to the rate of interest. After all, the smaller bodies which obtain their loans from the Public Works Loan Commissioners are not in an unfavourable position even comparatively. They are going to get their money at 4¾ per cent. and on the annuity system. Therefore, it is really a more favourable arrangement for them than that of the larger authority which borrows at 4½ per cent. and has to set aside a sinking fund. I would point out that even if you were to reduce the rate of interest still further the amount of difference you would make in the case of a house so as to be able to have an equivalent reduction in the rent and debt would not be nearly sufficient to meet the discrepancy which hon. Members believe exists between the town and the country.
Now I come to the observations made by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts). I will put the two Amendments together and explain what I had not appreciated before, that the purpose of this Amendment was to draw the line between the larger authorities with a population of over 250,000 and those below that figure. Those above that figure are to have £6 per house and those below the 50–50 arrangement. I wonder what authority the hon. Member has to suggest that this 50–50 arrangement would be acceptable? Consider the case which has been put by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley). According to his calculation, which I do not accept as correct, he estimated the annual loss per house, that is the annual gross loss, at £21. How would that work out on a 50–50 arrangement? By that method you are putting £10 10s. per house on the local authority, and they cannot bear that charge. The hon. Member charges me with not meeting the situation in the rural areas, and yet he puts forward this proposal to meet the case. I ask the hon.
Member how is £10 10s. per house from the local authority going to meet the case? This illustrates again that the moment you depart from the flat rate and try to put your ideas on paper you begin to come up against the real difficulties, and the hon. Member has not got over those difficulties by his suggestion.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: I said that it was not for us, being bound down by this Resolution, to put forward another solution. It is not for us to put forward such suggestions, but for the Minister to find his way out of the difficulty.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then I understand that the hon. Member opposite is only restrained by considerations of order from showing us a solution. I should have thought that the ingenuity of the hon. Member, aided by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), would have enabled him to get round any difficulty of that kind. No, Sir, I am afraid the hon. Member will not get over his difficulties as easily as that. If these suggestions were adopted you would be in the same difficulty as that which I pointed out at the beginning, namely, you would be having one form of subsidy for one class of authorities and another form for another class. There are only some 12 or 14 authorities in the country to which this £6 would apply, and on what ground are you going to say that the one which is just below is to have more favourable treatment? If its costs are higher, what are you going to say to other authorities? I would like hon. Members to seriously consider these things and to remember that we have had to decide between a number of alternatives, any one of which is subject to difficulties and criticisms, and that we have taken that one which on the whole appeared to us to be the most practical, the most easily worked, and the most likely to accomplish our object. I now come to the question which has been put to me as to the number of houses that can be turned out during the period covered by the Bill. Of course it is strictly limited. It is limited by the capacity of the building trade. If that is so, it comes to this, that somebody has got to wait, and you cannot all have houses in this limited time. Whilst I do not want for one moment to suggest that I do not appreciate the conditions of many houses
in the country villages, I do say that when you are thinking who shall come first and who shall wait a little longer, you should bear in mind that whilst the conditions inside the houses in the country villages may be as bad as anything which exists in the towns, nevertheless the people in the country are spending their time mostly out of doors instead of working as they do in the towns in a confined space, where the ventilation is not as complete as is the case with those who work in the open air where they are exercising their lungs and keeping themselves particularly fit. Whilst I do not want it to be thought that I do not appreciate the difficulties in the villages, I think the considerations which I have just mentioned should be borne in mind when you are deciding who should have the first claim to be relieved from these unhappy evils.

Captain BENN: How many houses is it expected will qualify for the subsidy provided under this Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it must be obvious that no estimate which I could put forward would be worth anything at all on this point, because it does not lie in my hands, but in the hands of the local authorities. It is said that if the subsidy is big enough you will get the fullest possible number of houses that can be turned out, but I think that would send prices up to such an extent that you might have to bring your whole programme suddenly to an end. If we were to raise the subsidy I warn hon. Members that, in my opinion, it would not have the effect that they desire, but really, in the long run, it would check and hamper our programme, create a variety of scandals, and would put money into the pockets of those to whom it was never intended that it should go. It is suggested that we have adopted the principle of half and half in the case of slum clearances, but that is not so. I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. You cannot adopt a flat rate when you are dealing with slum areas because there is no unit, and therefore you cannot apply the same rule. The hon. Member opposite was not quite correct in his description of what is contained in the Clause dealing with slum areas. The amount is half the estimated annual loss, and if the local authority make a mistake in their estimate, the extra charge will fall upon
the local authorities and not upon the State. Apparently that is a new point to the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain W. Benn), but it is a point which I would like to make clear, because it is rather an important one, and one which, if applied to the building of new houses, would again do a good deal to make unpopular the suggestion that the system of half and half should be applied to these small local authorities. If they make a little mistake as to the rents of the houses—there might be a rent strike or something of that kind, or they might have to reduce the rents below what they anticipated—then their estimate would be completely out, and the loss would fall upon them and not upon the Exchequer. Therefore I say again that is not likely to make such an arrangement popular.
I tried to make clear in Committee what my attitude was towards these rural areas. I said practically that when you have a flat rate you cannot expect that every local authority is going to get an equal advantage. I went further and said that, in my opinion, the rural areas would probably get less out of it than perhaps any other class of authority. I say again, if that proves to be so, when this legislation comes to an end I think those authorities would have a further claim upon the consideration of the Government. I am not in a position to-day to make a more definite statement than that. A man who has only been in office for seven weeks, and whose experience has been largely gained in towns, can hardly be expected to have grasped all the difficulties of country life in that time. It would be absurd for me to pretend that I had got any clearly worked out ideas as to what might be done in the future in this respect, but I am convinced that the problem in the country villages is different in this respect from the towns, namely, that it is a more or less stationary problem. There is a certain amount of work to be done, and it consists principally of replacing old and rotten houses by new ones, and speaking broadly, when you have done that you have solved the problem. Sooner or later I know that the problem of the increase in population has got to be dealt with. This problem has been accumulating for generations, and no houses have been built for many years, and to say that a state of things like that, which has been going on for all these years must be solved here and now in this
particular Bill seems to me to be rather unreasonable. We have to deal with a huge problem right throughout the country, and to say that a particular class of the community who are going to receive benefits from the urban population in the proposals in connection with rating, would have proper and just ground for grievance and indignation, because this whole problem was not being solved at the moment when we are trying to bring about a partial mitigation of the conditions in the towns, seems to me to be a position which is unreasonable and one which I do not think should be taken up by the Government.

Mr. HARDIE: I was very much surprised by one remark that fell from the right hon. Gentleman. In dealing with the question of building houses, although he admitted, in the earlier part of his speech, that houses were urgently needed, he admitted that the great British nation, despite all its power as represented in its Army and Navy, if it built houses at a greater rate than the trusts would permit, the trusts would have the power to step in and stop it from building houses. That, to me, is a very sad reflection upon any Governments, and especially upon the British Government, which says that it holds in its hand the power to govern. If the British Government holds in its hands the power to govern, it would so govern the nation that no body of trusts or combines in building materials would be allowed to interfere with the rights of the people to have whatever number of houses they want. Speaking as a Member representing an industrial area, in the centre of which is a very congested area, I want to make my plea on behalf of the rural districts. The Minister of Health stated that he had found some cases where the industrial areas were finding their way out into the rural areas for houses. That is not the case so far as Glasgow is concerned. Only last week the education authority in Glasgow had to deal with the case of a house measuring 8 feet by 8 feet, in which there were 12 persons, but despite that fact I still plead that something more should be done for the rural areas.
I have listened to all the arguments that have been put forward to-day from all quarters, and I can find no argument that can show to anyone who thinks the thing out clearly any reason why they
should not ask for even more for the rural areas than they ask for the industrial centres. The custom in regard to building houses in rural areas is not the same at all as in the towns. The area given is 850 feet, and in the country the habit is to put that all under one roof. When you do that you increase the cost, because you have a greater roof to build over that area, whereas in the towns you box them like cigar boxes, one on the top of the other. Then, when it comes to the arrangements in regard to water, it is cheaper in the towns, where houses are built together, than in the country, where they are separate. When it comes to the question of gas distribution, you have more mains to use in the country. For these reasons I am surprised that the Minister of Health should in any way combat the plea that something more should be done. He tried, but, in my opinion, failed, to point out the difficulties. He said that if the flat rate were departed from something terrible was going to happen, but nothing would happen.
The subsidy, so far as Scotland is concerned, cannot be compared with England, because our costs are higher in Scotland, and when the Minister of Health seeks to impose a flat rate, he places a penalty upon Scotland in its house building. With all due respect, I say that the class of house suggested now, upon which the subsidy is to be paid, is only a potential slum. It cannot be otherwise. The one objection that I have on the question of the finance of this Bill in relation to houses is that, while we are giving 850 feet as the area, there is nothing that determines what ought to be the height of the ceilings, whether of a single flat or a double flat. If it is going to be left in competition with regard to the finance side, and if the contractor sees that he is going to get £6 for covering a certain area, then, since nothing has been suggested by the Minister to show that the ceiling shall be a certain height, the subsidy, in that way, when handled by private contractors competing with each other, may have a different value altogether, and, through the sub-contractor, there may be a departure from the flat-rate system which the Minister wants to adopt so far as this Bill is concerned.
The whole point of real, sincere effort in housing is that we must do everything
to encourage the small local authorities, if we are going to have anything in the way of decent housing in colliery districts, for instance, which have been mentioned by various speakers to-day. I have been in two mining villages in Scotland this week, seeing some of the so-called new houses, which are no improvement, with the exception of six inches in width, on the houses built 70 and 80 years ago. What, then, is going to be the power that the Minister of Health is going to wield to show to the whole country that he is really interested in housing? I would make an appeal to him that he should again take this into consideration, and, while doing the best that can be done for the industrial areas, should put his best foot forward so far as rural areas are concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I should like just to correct one point in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), which shows rather a common misapprehension in regard to the question of cost as between rural and urban areas. We are not going to discuss the matter in general on this occasion, but I think it is necessary to correct this at the present stage. The hon. Member talks about the higher cost in rural as compared with urban areas, in, for instance, such matters as the greater length of gas mains. I should like to know what rural area there is in which gas is ever put into the houses? The costs, of course, vary a good deal. In the first place, in the London area wages are definitely higher than they are outside in the rural area, and the cost as far as labour is concerned is, therefore, smaller in the rural areas. The second thing that must be realised is that one of is site development. The difference lies not in the house, not in the original cost of the land, but in the site, and that goes to the root of the housing question in the towns. The development of the site multiplies something like ten-fold the cost of the land in an urban area, and the cost of the site, the roads, the sewers, fencing, and so on, amounts to nearly a quarter of the total cost of the building of the house. In the country it is totally different. You have the cost of the land, but you probably have no road, possibly only a track, or the house is put alongside an existing small country road.

Mr. HARDIE: I was looking towards the future. I was not thinking of going back to the troglodyte stage, because we have rural areas in Scotland where we are pushing the supply of gas and so on.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I regret that the hon. Member should have such extraordinary ideas about the troglodytes as he seems to suggest. In the ordinary rural problem, as it is at the present time, and not looking into the strange future to which the hon. Member is looking, it is an actual fact that at the present time, in the villages in ordinary rural areas, you have not to develop the site by water mains—because you have a pump—or by sewers, because you have the cesspit at the back, and as long as it is a decent distance from the cottage it is perfectly healthy. You have not to make provision for central heating, or for gas or electric lighting. The result is, therefore, that in the towns there is a far greater cost for building than in rural areas. Nevertheless, I stand by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has said as regards the agricultural question. Undoubtedly, in the country districts that I know in England, this Bill will not help them to the same extent as it will the towns.
I do not want to go into a general discussion, because it would be out of order, but I did think that the House would be interested in one particular scheme and its results, as showing that the matter is not nearly so difficult as is suggested by many critics at the present time. Let me take as typical a small urban district in my own constituency, which has devoted itself to the housing question, and put up some of the best houses, with an economic rent, before the War, when I was county medical officer of health. It is a paying proposition still, and stands at this day as a monument of what can be done by municipalities at an economic cost. They have put forward a further scheme, which has just been sanctioned by the Ministry of Health, for the erection of 42 good houses, with 5 rooms each, besides all the accessories, such as scullery, bathroom, and so on, with site development and all included; and the proposal is such that within 25 years the tenants will all own their own houses. This is a scheme for what may be called the better-class artisan, and yet they will not have to
pay a rent higher than many ordinary working people, unfortunately, have to pay in the towns for a couple of rooms, as we have heard already in the Debates on housing this Session. Under this proposal, by paying towards a sinking fund something like £3 15s. every year, in addition to a rent of £40, they will be paying off the whole cost of the house, and the house will be theirs at the end of 25 years. The money has been raised, not by that, extravagantly careful body, the Public Works Loans Board, but by private enterprise, from the Westminster Bank, and they are able to get that money—

Mr. J. STEWART: Did I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that these houses were to be occupied by artisans who were to pay a rent of £40 per year?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Yes, Sir, the hon. Member has understood me perfectly rightly. The total rent, including sinking fund, will be 15s. 9d. a week for 25 years, and at the end of that time the house will be their own. As regards the question whether it is possible for artisans to pay that, I think we ought not to discuss that now upon the Financial Resolution, but, at the same time, one-fifth of the total income of a family spent on rent, rates and rail is a perfectly correct figure, and is, unfortunately, less than most of the industrial population have to pay. The money was originally arranged to be raised at 5 per cent., but they have now got better terms, and have managed to make a contract at the bank for raising it at 4½ per cent. I only bring that forward to show how at the present time, without any allowance for subsidy, an ordinary small urban authority can bring forward a scheme like this which is obviously self-supporting, and designed for the use, at any rate, of the better class of artisans.
7.0 P.M.
It is sufficient simply to refer to the arguments which have been so well brought forward, as regards the effect of the flat rate, to realise that in a district such as that the flat rate would enable a large amount of good housing to be done, and that it will help very materially in the problem. We know that it will not help sufficiently to solve the whole problem, because the building trade is unable to produce houses at the rate
necessary to catch up with the deficiency. We know that perfectly well, and recognise that it is only by degrees that we can make up the leeway that has been lost I suggest that this flat rate has one extra advantage, which has not been sufficiently mentioned. I have tried, like all who have had to have personal responsibility in the housing question, seriously to consider in what way we can prevent the increase in prices which has always hung like a millstone around every State scheme of housing. I regret that the only official suggestion we seem to have had was that a Committee would be appointed to watch prices. I have no doubt that publicity has a very great effect in helping to show the true facts and to prevent exorbitant profiteering, but if a contractor in any business in this world sees a possibility of making a profit by supplying clients with a certain commodity at a certain price, surely, he has no scruples about getting the best price he can. Therefore, I do not believe that even publicity will help to keep costs down if the costs are going up under the natural law of supply and demand.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is raising a larger question than can be debated on this Amendment. The matter must be raised on the Bill when it is in Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I wanted to show that the flat rate is having an advantage, in addition to those which have been brought forward. I hope I shall not be ruled out of order if I just give the point of what I was going to say, namely, that, if the flat rate be adhered to, the contractors, building rings, and makers of materials all know that the amount of money that is coming from the Treasury is limited, they know by practical inference that the amount that can come from the local authorities is also limited, and they will know further that, unless they can keep their prices down to ordinary limits, they will not get the orders. Therefore, naturally, they will keep their prices down according to the ordinary law of supply and demand. I maintain, and bring it forward as a serious solution of the problem, that a flat rate and definite limitation of the State grant will be the best and only economic check upon prices of building
material that do so seriously affect the amount of building under a State scheme.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: The Minister of Health has practically admitted that this Bill will affect only in a very attenuated fashion the rural districts. He said so in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), who asked whether he would give some kind of definite pledge to introduce a Bill which would affect the rural districts more favourably than will this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not give us a definite promise. He said he had the town problem to consider, that it was very urgent, that he had only been in office seven weeks, and had had to settle the town problem. If he settles the town problem this Session, he will deserve a greater niche in political history than his distinguished father. I want to come back to the rural districts. I do not want to attack the Minister of Health, but to get something from him for rural areas. Will he give us a pledge that next Session the Government will introduce a Measure dealing with the housing problem in the rural districts? This Bill, he admitted, will do no good to us, or very little. I am not sure that he did not put it too highly. The local authorities and the rural districts have been bitten already, and I am perfectly certain they will be reluctant to come into any building scheme under this Measure. There is this other point. I have been asked on several occasions by local authorities in the country districts to approach the Minister of Health that they may actually sell the sites already bought. If the Minister of Health could promise us some Measure which would help the rural districts, then there would be no necessity for selling these sites which have been bought at a considerable price.
I would point out that in giving this subsidy you really are forcing up the price of building in the rural districts. It is the inevitable result of any Government subsidy that up goes the price. Whenever the State engages in enterprise, if it ever has any enterprise at all, which I doubt very much—[Laughter]—well, when they put in into operation we shall be very interested to see it—directly you have a State subsidy or State enterprise, you put up prices. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that there was a committee watch-
ing. I will back private people against all the committees in the world, and I suggest that you are putting up the prices against us in country districts to-day, even in the small matter a farm repairs and such like. I think it only just, therefore, that we should ask the Minister of Health, seeing that this Bill will do nothing material for rural districts, to give a pledge to introduce some Measure which will help us next Session. He talked of the benefits we are to receive from the rates. I quite admit, and am grateful to the Government for this measure of rating reform. It is not, however, wholly a benefit, but a measure of justice which we have asked for, and to which we have been entitled for a very long time. We shall have under this Bill to pay taxes in order that the houses shall be built in the towns, and I ask some Member of the Government to give us a definite pledge that the rural districts shall be dealt with next Session.

Mr. NICHOL: I should like to deal with one point that has been referred to by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) in his criticism of the hem Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie). I do not wish in the least to digress from strict order, but the points of difference between the two arguments are both founded on fact. The problem of the rural area in Scotland is a problem which does include many of the costs referred to by the hon. Member for Springburn, and, in addition, there is the enormous difference in the question of cartage and transport. The Glasgow Corporation can choose a site alongside a railway, as they have done in the last scheme. They have a scheme in operation just now where they are building 1,500 houses, to the site of which they have run a branch line direct from the railway. There are practically no cartage costs. They have temporary plat forms, and they dump the material on to the site of the actual houses. On the other hand, I could give cases within half-a-mile of Springburn where the cartage from the railway station to the site amounts to a very high charge indeed, and where the distance is from one to two miles. I think the questions of water mains and gas connections do arise in the rural areas in Scotland. Indeed, I have had an argument with the Under-Secretary for Health, which has extended from the time before he was in office, on
the question of connecting up gas mains under one of the Addison schemes.
With regard to this Amendment, it would limit, the scheme to burghs not exceeding 250,000. The effect of that in Scotland would be to leave only two cities, Glasgow and Edinburgh, under the present Bill. It has been argued that if that be done there will be a great delay in facing the housing question, but my information is rather the reverse; that the county councils, who are the authorities in the rural areas, and the small burghs in Scotland at least, are not going to touch this Bill; that it does mean a hopelessly large charge on the rates, and that the Bill is practically a dead letter in Scotland outside those two cities. Therefore, from that point of view we can quite fairly argue, I think, in favour of the Amendment as it stands. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans argued a case in which private enterprise had provided houses and in which the rent, and rates I take it, amounted to about £43 15s. in the year.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: It was the local authority—the urban district council.

Mr. NICHOL: There we are up against a difficulty in that we do not have such institutions as urban district councils in Scotland, with the result that we have a different problem. I am afraid, however, I should be out of order in arguing that, although there really is a direct case on the argument which was put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans for having a separate Measure for Scotland. Taking the case he gave, it would appear that this urban district council did provide houses, but at a rental of about 15s. 6d. a week.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: That included sinking fund charges.

Mr. NICHOL: And rates?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: No, it did not include rates, but at the end of 25 years there is nothing more to pay.

Mr. NICHOL: If it did not include rates, that 15s. 6d. would, with rates, come to something like 22s. a week. Taking that as one-fifth of income, the figure he gave for the rental of the household, it would seem that this urban district council was indeed providing houses, but for people with an income
of at least £5 or £5 10s. a week, or for that class of people who have roughly £300 a year. I suggest that is not, the problem which the Ministers in charge of the Bill are attempting to deal. I agree that it is possible that this Bill even in the large cities is going to provide houses, but at what a rental! In Scotland, Glasgow, for instance, will be able to build houses provided it is going to get a rental of about £34 or £35 a year, which with rates is going to mean 18s. 6d. to 20s. for rent alone. That is not the class in the community that the Government profess to be catering for in this their first instalment of solving the housing problem. It means, if we take a tenth, which I used to regard as a fair proportion of the rental, rather than a fifth, that the scheme that we are considering is going to provide houses for people with incomes somewhere between £400 and £500 a year and for that class alone, and on that basis even this is not the kind of house that the people in that position are going to desire. I have always been in this quandary as to limitation of size, because I have been worrying myself with the problem as to how either the Minister of Health or, for example, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs could possibly have a bath inside the dimensions of the bathroom they mention. I rather think there would have to be a course of acrobatic training for the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs before he could get into the bath.
My complaint is that the Bill as it stands is not going to provide houses at all. It will allow of the big municipalities building houses, which I agree there is possibly a market for in the present stringency, but it is a market only among people who have incomes round about, £400 a year. That is a class of the community which many of these authorities ostensibly are not aiming at housing, in the belief that they can quite easily house themselves. I think the Minister has not produced any sort of balance-sheet by which we have got over the difficulty of the loss of £17 per house. I admit you can put a very large proportion of that on to the rent, but if you do so you immediately come to the point at which you are providing for another class in the community altogether, and, on that dilemma, I think the present Bill fails entirely to fit the
situation. We cannot look upon it as a solution. In Scotland it is going to mean that in all probability these two cities will bring forward schemes and will build, say, 3,000 houses under them, but those houses will not be occupied by the people whom the Government profess to be going to provide houses for, and that outside the two cities no house building can possibly be done in Scotland under the Bill as it stands. What is needed is a larger flat rate if the Government is wedded to the flat rate—a very much more substantial contribution. Taking al the Clauses of the Bill together the Government proposes as its share of the solution of the housing problem £720,000 or so at the outside for new houses, £230,000 under the slum clearance section, and about £30,000 under the others—a total of rather less than £1,000,000. Yesterday we practically promised more than £1,000,000 over a considerable period of years in order to build a naval station at Singapore. We are prepared, that is, to put more money in the next 10 years into this questionable naval station at Singapore than the Government is prepared to put into the solution of the biggest question that faces us at the moment. That is my main contention. I do not think there is any great use in arguing one small point as against another. What is needed is a bigger contribution, and that contribution should not be put on the local rates. The biggest hindrance to the solution of the housing problem in all parts of the country, but particularly in the country districts, has been the fact that the rates are so high and the whole policy has been to put the rates higher. This Bill is going to make the problem worse by that method.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's argument would be quite relevant on the Second Reading of the Bill, but he is going beyond the present phase.

Mr. NICHOL: I admit that I have probably transgressed the precise and strict orders for this stage, but I feel that it is no question of settling the distinctions between one area and another, and that what is needed is for the Government to produce a second instalment which will be more than a piece of window dressing such as this one is.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I am sure that to-morrow morning, when the urban districts and the smaller boroughs read the
speech of the right hon. Gentleman, there will be a sense of great disappointment that, after the great work he has done in Birmingham, he is not taking the opportunity which is open to him of continuing to allow municipal bodies to carry out those housing reforms which we all know he has at heart. It has been suggested that this is a question of rural as against urban, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said he would not grudge on behalf of rural England the advantages which urban districts would get from this Measure. I am afraid the advantages which will accrue in urban districts will be very limited. The present proposals will not carry with them the goodwill of the local authorities, which is so essential if we are to produce houses.
The Minister of Health on the Committee stage of these Resolutions criticised the difficulty of abandoning the flat rate and suggested that if you once depart from it you would have to have a huge army of officials and bureaucratic control at Whitehall, which he for one was anxious to do without. We agree with him on that, but the alternative is not what he suggests. Already his Department is administering, on the basis of a percentage grant, medical health services, maternity and child welfare, the venereal centres, the feeding and the medical inspection of school children, and neither he nor the Minister of Education has a huge army of officials who are checking and visiting the various municipalities and local authorities, and therefore it is raising an unnecessary objection to this principle of the percentage grant to suggest that with it you inevitably get a huge army of officials who have to control every movement of the local authority. He suggested that the difficulty with the local authorities would be that they might estimate wrongly as to the rents they were to receive, and he asked how they would be affected should there be a rent strike. Whether there be a rent strike under the percentage grant or under the flat rate of £6 per house does not materially affect the local authority, and I think, on further consideration, he will have to admit that his hypothesis is not sound.
I appeal to him to get the goodwill of the local authorities. He said, "Do you think they will be satisfied with your
50–50?" If he remembers the earlier interview that his Department had with the local authorities, it was on the basis of the 50 50 grant. He suggested in the earlier stages that the £6 for 20 years would be in effect a grant on the 50 50 basis. The local authorities do not feel that. It is true that a few of the bigger authorities have agreed to work this scheme on the £6 for 20 years, but the smaller local authorities, the municipal associations below this figure of 250,000, the urban district authorities which comprise the smaller towns, are very nervous indeed as to what obligations they may be entering into by the terms he has offered, and I suggest that he should even now reconsider the question in order to get the goodwill and the hearty co-operation of these local authorities, because I feel under the scheme, as it now stands, local authorities will hesitate before they embark on providing the houses which are so necessary.
We cannot afford to wait any longer. We have waited long enough for these houses, and it would be a very great disappointment if we had to delay further until we see whether this Bill will supply the houses the Minister suggests. The same difficulties as between Scotland and England, between the rural and urban districts, arise in the needs of the various local authorities. Industrial districts which have very heavy rates probably have the greatest need for houses. A residential area where you have a high rateable value and a small need for houses can very well carry on with £6 for 20 years. Another town with a low rateable value and a large industrial population requiring thousands of houses as compared with the other's hundreds cannot wait. It will be very inequitably treated. Again I appeal to the Minister even now to reconsider the matter, because the country cannot longer wait for the supply of these houses which have been promised for so many years and which we fear will not materialise under the present proposal.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. WALLHEAD (seated and covered): I should like to ask a question. I have tried for at least three days, on this question of housing, to get the right hon. Gentleman to say a word on behalf of the over-populated valleys of South Wales. I have not been able to get a chance, and I should like to know when it will be possible to say something on

behalf of the people in the valleys I represent?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put down an Amendment to the Bill in Committee.

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 149.

Division No. 123.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Ellis, R. G.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Ashley, Lt.-Cot. Wilfrid W.
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lorimer, H. D.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lort-Williams, J.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Falcon, Captain Michael
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lumley, L. R.


Banks, Mitchell
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Barnston, Major Harry
Foreman, Sir Henry
Maddocks, Henry


Bell, Lieut.-Col W. C. H. (Devizes)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Furness, G. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Berry, Sir George
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Molloy; Major L. G. S.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gates, Percy
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Blundell, F. N.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Brass, Captain W.
Gould, James C.
Murchison, C. K.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Nall, Major Joseph


Briggs, Harold
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Bruford, R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Bruton, Sir James
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Paget, T. G.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Halstead, Major D.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butcher, Sir John George
Harrison, F. C.
Perring, William George


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Peto, Basil E.


Button, H. S.
Hawke, John Anthony
Pielou, D. P.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Cassels, J. D.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cautley, Henry Strother
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hilder, Lieut-Colonel Frank
Privett, F. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Raine, W.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rentoul, G. S.


Clarry, Reginald George
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Houfton, John Plowright
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hudson, Capt. A.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'nW)


Cope, Major William
Hughes, Collingwood
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc., Stretford)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hume, G. H.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Sandon, Lord


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Shepperson, E. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Shipwright, Captain D.


Ednam, Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lamb, J. Q.
Singleton, J. E.


Skelton, A. N.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Whitla, Sir William


Snowden, Philip
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Titchfield, Marquess of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Winterton, Earl


Sparkes, H. W.
Tubbs, S. W.
Wise, Frederick


Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wolmer, Viscount


Steel, Major S. Strang
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Wallace, Captain E.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Strauss, Edward Anthony
Waring, Major Walter
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.



Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Wells, S. R.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Gibbs.


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.



NOES.


Adams, D.
Harbord; Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hardie, George D.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Ponsonby, Arthur


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hastings, Patrick
Potts, John S.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Price, E. G.


Bonwick, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Pringle, W. M. R.


Bowdler, W. A.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Ritson, J.


Briant, Frank
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Brotherton, J.
Herriotts, J.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hill, A.
Royce, William Stapleton


Buchanan, G.
Hillary, A. E.
Saklatvala, S.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hinds, John
Salter, Dr. A.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Hogge, James Myles
Sexton, James


Cairns, John
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Cape, Thomas
Irving, Dan
Shinwell, Emanuel


Chapple, W. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Sullivan, J.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Duncan, C.
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dunnico, H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Thornton, M.


Ede, James Chuter
Lansbury, George
Tillett, Benjamin


Edmonds, G.
Lawson, John James
Tout, W. J.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Leach, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lee, F.
Warne, G. H.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Falconer, J.
Linfield, F. C.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Foot, Isaac
Lowth, T.
Webb, Sidney


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Westwood, J.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
McLaren, Andrew
Wheatley, J.


Greenall, T.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grigg, Sir Edward
Maxton, James
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Millar, J. D.
Wintringham, Margaret


Grundy, T. W.
Morel, E. D.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Muir, John W.
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Newbold, J. T. W.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nichol, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
O'Grady, Captain James
Mr. Phillips and Sir A. Marshall.


Hancock, John George
Oliver, George Harold

Question put, accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 245.

Division No. 124.]
AYES.
[7.40 p.m.


Adams, D.
Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Bonwick, A.
Buchanan, G.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bowdler, W. A.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Briant, Frank
Buxton, Charles (Accrington)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Bromfield, William
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Brotherton, J.
Cairns, John


Cape, Thomas
Hill, A.
Price, E. G.


Chapple, W. A.
Hillary, A. E.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Charleton, H. C.
Hinds, John
Ritson, J.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hogge, James Myles
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Darbishire, C. W.
Irving, Dan
Royce, William Stapleton


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Saklatvala, S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Salter, Dr. A.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Scrymgeour, E.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sexton, James


Duncan, C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Dunnico, H.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Ede, James Chuter
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Edmonds, G.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Falconer, J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Snowden, Philip


Foot, Isaac
Lansbury, George
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lawson, John James
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Leach, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Lee, F.
Sullivan, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Linfleld, F. C.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Greenall, T.
Lunn, William
Thornton, M.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Tillett, Benjamin


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McLaren, Andrew
Tout, W. J.


Grigg, Sir Edward
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Groves, T.
March, S.
Warne, G. H.


Grundy, T. W.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Millar, J. D.
Webb, Sidney


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Westwood, J.


Hancock, John George
Morel, E. D.
Wheatley, J.


Harbord, Arthur
Muir, John W.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Hardie, George D.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Whiteley, W.


Harris, Percy A.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Nichol, Robert
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hastings, Patrick
O'Grady, Captain James
Wintringham, Margaret


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Oliver, George Harold
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry



Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harriotts, J.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Phillips and Sir A. Marshall.


NOES.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Button, H. S.
Ellis, R. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cadogan, Major Edward
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Cassels, J. D.
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Falcon, Captain Michael


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Banks, Mitchell
Chapman, Sir S.
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Barnston, Major Harry
Clarry, Reginald George
Foreman, Sir Henry


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Clayton, G. C.
Forestier-Walker, L.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Berry, Sir George
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Furness, G. J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Ganzoni, Sir John


Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major William
Gates, Percy


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Goff, Sir R. Park


Brass, Captain W.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Gould, James C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)


Briggs, Harold
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Gretton, Colonel John


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Bruford, R.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Bruton, Sir James
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Halstead, Major D.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Butcher, Sir John George
Ednam, Viscount
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Harrison, F. C.




Harvey, Major S. E.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Shepperson, E. W.


Hawke, John Anthony
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Shipwright, Captain D.


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Singleton, J. E.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Murchison, C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Nall, Major Joseph
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sparkes, H. W.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hopkins, John W. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Houfton, John Plowright
Paget, T. G.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hudson, Capt. A.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hughes, Collingwood
Penny, Frederick George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Hume, G. H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Perring, William George
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Hurd, Percy A.
Peto, Basil E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Pielou, D. P.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Titchfield, Marquess of


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Tubbs, S. W.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Privett, F. J.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Jephcott, A. R.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Ralne, W.
Wallace, Captain E.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rentoul, G. S.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Waring, Major Walter


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Wells, S. R.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Lamb, J. Q.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Whitla, Sir William


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Robertson- Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'nW)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lorimer, H. D.
Rothschild, Lionel de
Winterton, Earl


Lort-Williams, J.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wise, Frederick


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lumley, L. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Russell, William (Bolton)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Maddocks, Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Mason, Lieut.-Col C. K.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mercer, Colonel H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sandon, Lord
Gibbs.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether I shall be in Order, before the next Amendment on the Paper is called, in moving to leave out, in paragraph (a), the words, "and size" ["houses of such type and size"]? I think these words, as they appear in the Resolution, must be limiting words. The Minister of Health, earlier in the Debate this afternoon, said there was an intimate connection between the size of the house and the subsidy. If that be the case, I submit that these words were put in for the express purpose of limiting the subsidy to houses of the type and size which the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating. The matter is of importance, because a Circular is being issued by the Ministry of Health at the present time, inviting the localities to build houses of the particular maximum size which is at present specified in the Bill. I think, therefore, that the Minister of Health must have put in these words originally.
It is quite true that in the Debate the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said that it might be construed—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member submitted his Amendment to me, and I told him that I did not select it. Under the Standing Order he is only entitled to address me on the matter, if I ask him to do so.

Captain BENN: On the point of Order. With regard to this manuscript Amendment, and to the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham), which is to leave out, in Parapraph (a), the words, "houses of such type and size and completed within such time as may be mentioned in the said Act," as well as my own Amendment, which is to leave out the words, "not exceeding" ("not exceeding a sum equal to"), I should like to ask whether we shall be at liberty, if these Amendments are not
selected by you, and have never been discussed and divided upon in this House, to move them in Committee? Our fear is that, if we do not move now, we may be limited by the Resolution hereafter. If we are at liberty to move in Committee 1, for my part, am satisfied.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not for me to usurp the functions of whoever may be the Chairman of the Committee, but I think these Amendments could be moved in the Committee, at any rate, in so far as they do not impose a charge, in which case they would be equally out of Order now, or if they were raised in Committee.

Mr. ROBERTS: If the words mean nothing at all, I am quite satisfied.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move to leave out Paragraph (b).
The object of the Amendment is to enable us to discuss the question of slum clearances and rehousing. I dislike the whole policy contemplated in this part of the Bill. I do not think the policy of buying up slum property at the public expense is the way to tackle the housing problem. This policy gives slum owners an interest in the shortage of houses. The remedy lies in building new houses, in offering them at rents which the inhabitants of the slums can afford to pay, thereby inducing them to remove into the good houses; and having done that, in exercising the powers under the Public Health Acts to compel the owners of the slums to remove the slums at their own expense. If there were a sufficiency of houses, obviously it would be extremely difficult for the slum owners to let their slums. I do not think it is sound public policy for the local authorities, or for the State, to be the scavengers of private enterprise in dealing with the question of housing. All these slums, and all the problems associated with their existence, are a heritage bequeathed to us by the private enterprise which has dealt with the provision of houses for the working classes in the past. When we hear the merits of private enterprise extolled in this House, we must never forget that all the existing state of affairs is due to the lamentable failure in providing for the necessities of the life of the people in days gone by.
If local authorities must adopt the policy of clearing up these slums, I sub-
mit that the amount allotted to them here, while, on the face of it, it may seem generous, is insufficient. In the larger areas particularly, and in some of the larger cities—in one which is familiar to the right hon. Gentleman, and in one with which I am familiar—fabulous prices have to be paid to the people who own the ground on which these insanitary houses are located. While I have not the figures at my disposal, I should have no difficulty in getting, from the experience of the City of Glasgow, cases where £11, £12 and £14 a square foot have had to be paid in the past for areas that were purchased for similar schemes. In the past, the Corporation of Glasgow has had to impose so high a rate as 6d. in the £ for this purpose alone. Prices in modern times have considerably increased, and if they are to deal with the problem as it presents itself to them now, I do not know, under modern conditions, what the rate for this purpose may be. Let me mention the extent of the slum question in the City of Glasgow, which may be taken as typical. We have there, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health informed the House the other day, 13,195 houses occupied by 58,000 people. These houses have been certified by the Medical Officer of Health as unfit for human habitation. If the areas contained in these houses are to be cleared, and if the prices of the past are to be paid to the owners of the sites and properties, the burdens which will be placed on the local authorities by this Section of the Bill, when taken into consideration with the other Sections of the Bill, are bound to clog the wheels of progress and to make the provision of houses and the removal of slums an ever-increasingly difficult one in our local areas.
This Bill places on the local authorities three distinct burdens. First of all, there is the burden of the subsidy, or their part of it. Secondly, there is the burden of dealing with the slum areas; and, thirdly, there is the burden of the assistance which they may give to private enterprise. I submit, quite seriously, that these burdens which are being piled up on the local authorities are bound to break their backs and to make progress practically impossible. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough, in a discussion on a former Amendment, to remind us that we are not being promised half the amount required for the clearing of these areas and
the rehousing of the people, but only a certain proportion of the estimated loss on the transaction. Here, again, we are not even guaranteed this amount, and these unfortunate words, which are to be found all over the Bill, appear here again. The words are, "That the amount will not exceed," and it is left for the Minister or the Department to say what the amount will be. We are only stating the maximum here, and not mentioning the minimum, so that the local authorities have no guarantee, when they enter on these proposals, that the Minister may not limit the loss, say,. to 5s., instead of £5 or £500.
An important departure has been made from the main principle of the Bill. We are dealing here, not merely with the removal of slum houses, but with the provision of new houses into which these people are to be moved. In the principal sections of the Bill the Government have laid down the minimum standard of house and have said they will not subsidise the local authorities unless they conform to this minimum standard. When, however, they come to deal with these unfortunate inhabitants of the slums who have suffered most, and have been oppressed most under the industrial system, no minimum standard at all is laid down in regard to the housing to be provided, or the subsidies by the State. Surely, if you can lay down a minimum standard for the more fortunate people for whom houses are provided, it is not too much to ask that for the class which most needs protection from the State—the poorest of the poor—a minimum standard should be laid down whenever you are making your financial provisions.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to second the Amendment. I would like to say that it is an impossible proposition that the local authorities should deal with slum areas in the manner proposed by this Bill. We have heard about the position in Glasgow and Scotland. I would like to draw attention to the conditions in London. We have black spots in Kensington, Westminster, Poplar and South-East London. Wherever you cast your eyes in the Metropolis, you see great houses in the big streets, but behind them are some of the foulest slums to be found in the Kingdom. To-day I put a question to the Minister of Health, and in answer he said
that he could not trace any correspondence in reference to our slums in Poplar. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the late Member, Mr. Will Crooks, both in the House and outside of it, talked of the slum areas in Poplar and other districts with which he was acquainted. We have sent up over and over again representations in regard to our different areas, but they have not been dealt with. Quite contrary to what the Attorney-General said the other night, the only reason given by the county councils or the Minister of Health is that they have not the money to deal with them. The difficulty that every council and every medical officer of health is in regarding such areas as these lies in the fact that the local authorities who suffer most is the poorest local authority; that the central authority here in London, not being in touch with the localities, refuses every time either to raise money or to take any effective action.
I would like the Minister of Health and the House to realise that it is no use saying that the houses you are to build under this Bill will accommodate the people who are in the slums at the present time. The people in the slums need big houses because they nearly always have big families. The staggering fact which I think this House has not realised is that the poorest of the poor are those who have the biggest families. You might say that they ought not to have them, but Bishops and other people say that they ought to have them. That is one of the difficulties of this problem. I would like, in order that the House may realise the point of view that the houses you are to build under this Bill are of no use to the people in the slums, to read two or three figures. There is a family of four persons living in one room. There are 11 persons in another family, sleeping in two rooms. There are, lower down, eight persons sleeping in one room, and I could go down to another where there are 12 persons sleeping in two rooms, 11 in three rooms, 10 in two rooms, 10 in three rooms, and so on, and there is one case of 15 persons in three rooms.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: One family?

Mr. LANSBURY: Does it matter whether they are one family or more?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understood the hon. Member was saying that the houses built under the Bill would be of no use
for these families because they were so big. That was why I asked whether the 15 persons he speaks of were one family.

Mr. LANSBURY: I cannot say as to that. The report I have here gives the total rooms occupied as four. The rooms for sleeping three and the number of persons 15. If you split that family into two, the houses would not be of any use for that family.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Why?

Mr. LANSBURY: Because there are too many children. How can you sleep children in one room where there happen to be both boys and girls and where the ages of the eldest would be such that they could not sleep together in one room? The houses to be built under the Bill, as I understand it, are to have two bedrooms or cupboards in which people are to sleep. The father and mother must have one room. No amount of argument or talking can get over the facts. There is nothing so costly as dealing with a slum district or a district where slums exist. I am quite confident that the building of these small houses will mean the re-creation of slums. That is another thing I think all housing reformers have passed by. In London you destroyed the slums in the centre and you have re-created them on the circumference. You have not re-created the courts and the alleys, but courts and alleys are not necessary for slums. You can have slums because of overcrowding where the streets are wide. I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that this question of slums ought to be taken in hand nationally and right out of the hands of the local authorities altogether. There have been plenty of laws to get rid of slums, but the reason you have not got rid of them is because the local authorities, rich even as London is, can never face the cost of it. Only the nation can face the cost of it. A nation that spends millions of money on the improvement of roads as a national service, I think, should spend money on the provision of homes for the people, which is a greater national service than the provision of roads.
The only way to get rid of slums is for the nation to come to the assistance of these people, because by no other means can we get sufficient money. We hear about the nation and local authority
paying half-and-half, but we do not know what half-and-half really means. I am certain the local authorities will not be able to face that burden. Every local authority is overburdened with debt, piled on to us because of unemployment. You are now going to put on these overburdened authorities—if we accept it, and I am sure it will not be accepted—this new burden. This bit of the Bill will simply be a little more window-dressing, just as many provisions in other Bills were. I want to see the House taking this matter in hand in the only effective manner by the nation finding the money, buying up the slum owners, or hanging them, whichever is the most effective means of getting rid of them, and destroying the business of making money in slum property. The local authorities cannot bear half this burden that is to be cast upon them, and the slums will not be got rid of, unless the nation finds the money out of national funds to deal with them. I conclude by saying this. My late colleague and friend, Will Crooks, speaking of the slums of Poplar in connection with Imperialism, said that people talked about the Empire on which the sun never sets, but he could show them where it never rose. That is true in many a district of Poplar to-day. We cannot deal with it. The county council cannot deal with it. The only people that can deal with it is the nation as a whole.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I want to say a few words in support of the Amendment on behalf of the townships of South Wales and in particular the constituency I represent. I have in my hand figures supplied to me from the Health Department of Merthyr Tydvil, in which they tell me that in the various wards there are 1,108 houses in which four families are residing, that 501 of those houses are unfit for human habitation but are still occupied, that 84 houses are in such a bad state of repair as to require rebuilding, while there are 1,962 which require extensive repairs before they are fit for habitation. I want to point out that, if a local authority, faced with a problem of this description, is to receive no more assistance than is given by the Bill, this problem cannot be faced by a local authority. The rates of Merthyr Tydvil are excessively high. They have had an excessive amount of unemployment to deal with in the last three or four years.
There are men there who have been entirely unemployed for two years or more and the rates are in the neighbourhood of 25s. to 26s. in the £. Owing to the fact of the method of assessment, which is upon the poundage output of the steel works and the various coal pits, owing to the fact that there has been such extensive unemployment, works have been closed more or less for two years or more and the burden of the rates fall upon a particularly low assessment. Under these conditions, it is absolutely impossible for the local authority to take advantage of the Minister's Bill for building the houses required before they can even tackle or thing of tackling the terrible problem of the slum areas. I want to point out that this presses with particular severity upon towns such as Merthyr. If I take a comparison with the neighbouring city of Cardiff—

It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES).

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: I beg to move:
That, in the opinion of this House, the necessity for the compulsory discharge of naval ratings, especially the engine-room artificers, 5th class, and the compulsory discharges of ex-apprentices from the Royal Dockyards from employment which has always been regarded as permanent, and for the efficient performance of which they had received special training, partly at the expanse of the State and partly at the expense of their parents, is much to be regretted; and it is the duty of the Government to do all that lies in its power to assist all such men so discharged in as practical a manner as possible, preferably by way of finding them immediate alternative employment.
I do not propose to approach this matter with any feeling of hostility. My desire is rather to assist the Government; I wish to find some way out of the difficult situation in which they find themselves to-day. Everyone in the House, to whatever party he belongs, will sympathise very deeply, with the condition of the unfortunate men to whom the Motion refers, I think I may say not least of all the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Financial Secretary. But sympathy
will not meet the case altogether; something more and something very definite is required. I never believe—I am not alone in that in this House—in attacking unless I have some remedial measures to propose. Therefore, before I sit down I trust the suggestions which it will be my privilege to propose will at least commend themselves—I cannot say that they will be accepted, but I think that they will commend themselves—not alone to the House, but to the First Lord and the Financial Secretary, and to the Government itself. A very general opinion obtains among naval ratings that these recent compulsory discharges of petty officers and men from the Royal Navy are, in fact, a breach of contract. They say, and I think they rightly say, that there is a moral obligation on the part of the Admiralty to employ a man for the period of his engagement unless through misconduct or unsuitability he proves himself unfit for the position which he has undertaken.
What are the terms of the man's engagement? That is a very important matter. Article 363 of the King's Regulations lays it down that "the first continuous service engagement of a man on first entry shall be for 12 years, that of a boy to serve until he attains the age of 30; the second continuous engagement service to complete time for pensions." Another document to which I desire to refer is the official pamphlet entitled, "How to join the Navy." I daresay there are many Members of the House who have seen that pamphlet. It is exceedingly well printed and very appropriately illustrated. It has a cover which is very alluring, and many a young man and boy, having seen its illustrations and the cover, has perused the official statements, and has ultimately decided to join the Navy. What does that pamphlet hold out to the man who joins the Navy? It holds out to him the prospect of security of employment and an ultimate pension. I do not think that either the First Lord or the Financial Secretary will contest that statement. But I ask the House to follow me a little further, and to answer this question—have these pledges been observed in the cases which we are now discussing, and which we shall go on to discuss? Certainly, I think, no one can say that these pledges have been fulfilled with a month's notice, and, in the case of men who have had less than five years'
service in the Navy, a bonus of £20. True, we are told, and have often been told, by the Admiralty, that there is a clause in the men's engagement containing these words:
Provided my services should be so long required.
But that clause has never been used to dispose of a surplus of personnel. Why was it put in? What was the object of the clause? Everyone who knows anything about the Navy knows that the object of that clause was to reserve the right to the Admiralty to discharge inefficient or unsuitable men—nothing more. What has happened? That clause has now been used to discharge men who, by their conduct and their ability, are admirably suited for retention. That is my first point.
The Admiralty still require men to pay heavily for discharge at their own request, and those men are very severely punished should they attempt to evade completion of their engagements. Apparently, then, it comes to this: If the Admiralty want to discharge a man they can do so without infringing any moral obligation on their part, provided, of course, that they give a month's notice, and, in the case of men who have not completed five years' service, a bonus of £20; but if a man wants to discharge himself he must go through a good many preliminaries, and those of us who have assisted men in the Navy to discharge themselves know very well that it is a very long process. All sorts of inquiries are made, what the man is going to do, whether he has employment awaiting him. Every investigation is made, so that the Admiralty may be perfectly satisfied that the man when he leaves the Navy is going into certain employment. The man has not only to submit to these inquiries, which may be very necessary—I believe they are necessary—but he has to pay for his discharge the sum of £75. Surely £75 as against £20 is hardly an equitable arrangement? I would suggest, in the homely phrase, that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This sudden change—and it is a sudden change—in Admiralty policy, by which a man who joins the Navy is refused the privileges promised to him, namely, to serve for a special period and at the end of that period to be allowed to engage again for
pension, unless he proves himself inefficient, or misconducts himself—this innovation must necessarily have a very bad effect on the efficiency of the Navy.
No man is likely to give of his best in any walk of life if there is always present to his mind the possibility of summary dismissal without any just cause on his part. This consideration not alone affects men in the Navy but affects every working man in every walk of life. No one, I am sure, is more anxious to do everything in his power to secure efficiency in the Navy than the First. Lord, but I am bound to say that this reversal of Admiralty policy will not assist, the efficiency of the Navy. The policy which has been reversed is the policy which was continued year in and year out for generations; it is the policy upon which the Navy has been built up, and it is the policy which every old sailor living to-day remembers as the policy which was in force when he joined as a boy. Then there is another point. Why should compulsory retirement apply only to the men in the naval barracks, the men and boys in the schools and the men employed in home waters? Are there no surpluses in the different branches of the Navy on foreign stations? I do not think the Admiralty will deny that there are surpluses there, but they say they were unable to deal with the men on the foreign stations, because these reductions had to be made before bringing in the Naval Estimates—in other words, before the beginning of the present financial year. That may be a very good argument from the Admiralty standpoint, but I am not, here to-night to uphold the Admiralty standpoint. I am here to speak on behalf of the men and, while this procedure may be very good for the Admiralty, I ask, is it fair to the men?
Everyone knows that there are surpluses on the foreign stations, and a certain number of these men should, in equity, have been included in the compulsory discharges. The arrangement should have been made on the pro rata principle and not on the principle of arbitrary selection. Moreover, had the Government taken time by the forelock, they might have prepared themselves for this emergency. I would point out that the first Order regarding reductions in the Navy was issued as far back as May, 1922, and the Atlantic Fleet did not leave home waters until January of this year.
The Admiralty say they waited until the last minute before going in for compulsory retirement. It may be so, but surely it is open to those who disagree with the Admiralty to ask why they did not begin earlier? If they had done so this kind of thing would not have happened. It may not be too late even now to equalise matters, and I suggest in that direction that the whole Navy should be again circularised to see if there are any young men on these foreign stations who wish to leave the Service, say for migration purposes. We have heard a great deal about migration being open to everyone who desires to take advantage of it. Then I say, offer it to these men in the Navy. Possibly they may not be unwilling to take advantage of the schemes which are now maturing under the provisions of the Empire Settlement Act. In any event, some further effort should be made to give these men the opportunity of going out if they like so as to make it possible for those men to re-enter the Service who have had to go out of the Navy, but who did not want to go out. Of course, if that were done, such men would have to pay back the small bonus they received, but that could be spread over a period of years and it should not be impossible for them to repay it.
Some critics may say that ratings, other than the engine-room artificers 5th class and ratings of less than five years service, have nothing of which to complain. It is said, they have received the same treatment as men of similar standing who have voluntarily taken their discharges. I do not share that view, and I think a great number of Members of the House will agree with me, because I say there is a great difference between a man who leaves the Service of his own accord and one who is compelled to go out, whether he likes it or not. The volunteer may have a post to go to or may wish to be free for some cause of his own, but the man who is compulsorily retired is in an entirely different position. He has no sure employment awaiting him and he may have a wife and family dependent upon him. If these men are to be "put on the beach"—I use a phrase common in the Navy, one that is familiar to many hon. Members—to suit the convenience of the Government, surely their compensation should be on a higher scale than that of volunteers. With regard to the men
of less than five years service, they have an even greater cause of complaint, because their bonus only amounts to £20. The volunteer may be quite satisfied with £20, but the compulsorily retired man who was desirous of continuing his life in the Navy, is certainly not satisfied with £20, because he knows, only too well, when that £20 has gone, he will have to walk the streets in search of employment and very lucky he will be if he can find it. I am very much afraid that the qualification of five years in the Navy will not open many doors to men in the industrial world.
As regards another class of men who are dealt with in the Resolution, the engine-room artificers, 5th class, what is their position? They have just completed their 4½ years apprenticeship. For naval purposes they rank as ex-artificer apprentices, because in the Navy you only want a 4½ years apprenticeship. But if these same men want to get work outside, they must go through a five years' course in order to comply with the trade union regulations. I am not saying this in any controversial sense. I admire the trade union regulations in that respect, and I think the trade unions are doing a good work when they insist on keeping up the standard in their unions and insist upon a five years apprenticeship. The men to whom I refer, however, have only done a 4½ years apprenticeship. The Government have seen themselves that this is a hardship, and they have offered to these engine-room artificers to take them into the Royal Dockyards for six months or find them alternative employment in the Air Service. A few have accepted the half year in the Dockyard, but scarcely any have accepted the alternative to go into the Air Force. Why do they not want to go into the Air Force? I think I can best explain that by reading a letter which I received a day or two ago from one of these engine-room artificers discharged. It runs thus:
I beg to bring to your notice the following facts, typical of the treatment meted out to us: Under the official notification, the date of discharge was fixed for 29th March, but it was not till 5th April that everything was in order for us to leave. We were offered the alternatives of entry into the Air Force or completion of apprenticeship in the dockyards. The most superficial inquiry into the terms offered by the former for trained mechanics is self-
explanatory of the almost general refusal to accept them. For those of us who chose the dockyard, with its promise of some sort of employment, the laxity of officialdom in effecting the promise is exhausting the little bounty granted at our discharge. To date absolute silence has been maintained, and we are forced to add to the long queue at the Labour Exchanges. This indecision prevents the acceptance of a situation in the event of being called upon, so you can easily see the dilemma in which we are placed. I am writing on behalf of myself and 11 comrades in distress to solicit your aid.
That is the position as explained by an engine-room artificer himself, who has been compulsorily discharged, and who has had the opportunity of alternative employment offered him. I quite see the difficulty that the officials of the Dockyard are in, and I sympathise with them. They are called upon, on the one side, to turn out an ex-dockyard apprentice on the other to take in an ex-engine-room apprentice. That is their position, and I have no doubt they have found it very difficult to come to a conclusion in the matter. We must not forget that these engine-room artificers had a splendid future before them. Every kind of promotion lay in their path, they might even have become commissioned officers, but all their hopes and expectations have been dashed to the ground, and their compensation is £20, with the alternative of entry into the Air Force or half a year in the Royal Dockyards. What is to happen at the end of the half year? As sure as I am standing here to-night, the end of the half year will see these men on the beach. Compare, then, the outlook in each case, and let us ask ourselves, Are the terms generous? I appeal to the First Lord to say, in his reply, whether he regards these terms as generous on the part of the Admiralty. I do not hesitate to say that they are not generous, and I go further than that, and say they are not just and they are not fair.
Surely, if the Admiralty claim the right to close these men's careers in the Navy at their will, there is a moral obligation on their part to give them higher compensation, and I would suggest to the First Lord that the whole question of bonus for engine-room artificers, fifth class, and for the men with less than five years' service, should be reconsidered, and that where alternative employment has been accepted
the Admiralty should see that that employment is immediately made available. Those are my suggestions, and I have sketched out the case, not with any heat or with any desire to put the Admiralty in a difficult position, but merely to explain to them and to the House the position in which the men compulsorily discharged are unfortunately placed. I would ask the Admiralty authorities to do everything that is practicable in the way of compensating these men.
I now pass to discuss Part II of my Resolution, which deals with the compulsory discharges of ex-apprentices from the Royal Dockyards. Who are these ex-apprentices? This is a very important matter, because, unless the House understands exactly who these apprentices are, they will not understand the position in which those who have been compulsorily discharged are placed. Boys become apprentices in the Royal Dockyards as the result of a competitive examination. Apprenticeship covers a period of six years, and the different trades to which they are apprenticed are as follows: Shipwrights, engine fitters, electric fitters, ship fitters, patternmakers, boilermakers, caulkers, coppersmiths, joiners, founders, plumbers, painters, ropemakers, sailmakers and smiths. I think the House will agree with me that that is a very wide area. An all round technical and theoretical training is part of the Admiralty scheme, coupled with continued education at the Dockyard schools, and one of the prime objects of these schools is the provision of qualified men for employment as draughtsmen and subordinate Dockyard officials, but the Admiralty have also kept in view another possibility. They hope, and have always hoped, and their hopes have been justified, to obtain under this scheme a body of men from which could be recruited designers of ships for the Royal Navy, while at the same time increasing the efficiency of Dockyard workmen as a whole.
These facts will give Members some idea of these apprentices. What do they do? They spend periods at the various branches of their trades, and in this, it is very important to observe, their training differs from the practice in outside yards, where men usually remain specialists in side lines. The dockyard apprentice, in addition to manual duties, can,
and does, lay off work, take account of materials, make out estimates of cost, etc. These qualifications are all incidental to the training of the dockyard apprentices, but they are outside the duties of all but premium students in private firms. Entry as a dockyard apprentice is primarily by Civil Service examination. This ensures the possibility of brighter and more intelligent youths being obtained at an adaptable age for moulding into the customs and traditions of the Admiralty. I do not think the First Lord will deny that. The net result of it all is that, after completion of his apprenticeship in the Service, the Service obtains a mechanic trained for its particular work, with none of the limitations or restrictions of the outside trained mechanic.
An outstanding feature in the dockyard scheme is the clear field it gives to ability. The entry of apprentices is by competition without nomination. A boy entering from any class may secure advancement to the highest posts, solely as the result of his own ability and hard work. These apprentices have supplied the nation with a large proportion of distinguished naval architects and engineers who, through service with the Admiralty and private firms, have contributed to the preeminence in shipbuilding which this country holds at the present day, and among them are several who have occupied the position of Director of Naval Construction at the Admiralty. That is a description of the dockyard apprentices. That is the work they are trained to do. That is what they become, and yet these are the men whom the Admiralty have felt it necessary to discharge. Numbers of young ex-apprentices have recently been dispensed with, after years of expensive training, partly defrayed, in the earlier years, by their parents, who could ill-afford it, and partly by the State, with a corresponding loss not only to themselves but to the Service and the State. In no other Department of the State would this step have been taken. For instance, all recruits for the Post Office, who pass into the Post Office by Civil Service examination, are automatically established on entry.
And now I come to a reform which I wish to urge upon the Admiralty. Let every dockyard apprentice be established immediately he is out of his time. I
think, in the few words which I have addressed to the House, I have at least disposed of the idea that ex-apprentices compulsorily retired will be able to get any work in outside yards, even if there are any vacancies, and we all know there are none. I would ask any Member on the Labour benches to say whether it is possible for these men to get employment in private yards on the training they have received in the Royal Yards?

Mr. LANSBURY: We do not know; we want you to tell us.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I have asked hon. Members opposite. Take the case of shipwrights. This is a class of ex-apprentices that has suffered most from the compulsory discharges. These young men learn a special trade, which is of no use in the private yards of the country. It is applicable to the Royal Yards only.

Mr. LANSBURY: Would the hon. Gentleman support us in building merchant ships in those Yards?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am talking about an entirely different matter. I am afraid the hon. Member has not followed what I was saying. This is not a controversial question about the building of ships, but merely a question as to whether these young men could find employment in private yards on the training they have received in the Royal Yards. I say they cannot.

Mr. LANSBURY: Then support us in building merchant ships in the Royal Dockyards!

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is well known that ever since the "Achilles" was built at Chatham, the first iron warship built in a Royal Dockyard, the shipwrights have done the iron shipbuilding in the Royal Yards, and, under the present system, the young men entered for this trade do not learn the wood shipbuilding necessary to fit them for competition in the private yards. The consequence is that they have learnt a trade—a very good trade—that of iron shipbuilding, which, by the rules of the trade unions, as the hon. Member knows quite well, they are not allowed to work at outside H.M. dockyards. Therefore, not having learnt wood shipbuilding, and not being allowed to work on iron, they are placed in a hopeless position, and it is not at all likely that a single one of the 1917 shipwrights
who have just been discharged will be likely to find any employment at their trade outside. In fact, many of them, I am told, on reliable information, are walking the streets of dockyard towns. Others are now applying for positions in county council work, and in various other kinds of civil work, and taking the position of clerks. These are the men whom the State has paid to be trained to be shipwrights, in order to build up the Navy of the future.
The loss is not confined to the men. There is a heavy loss to the State by compulsorily discharging the ex-apprentices from the Royal Yards. This will, perhaps, be better understood when I say that every member of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors is an ex-dockyard apprentice, and practically all the foremen inspectors, draughtsmen and subsidiary officials employed in the Royal Yards are ex-dockyard apprentices. So, too, on the engineer side. Ex-dockyard apprentices fill all subordinate official posts in the Royal Yards. Quite a number become naval engineers, others are to be found at the Patent Office, in the Ordnance Corps, and hold Commissions in the Army. Yet by a stroke of the pen the Admiralty adopt this policy; they have found themselves compelled to deprive—quite unintentionally, I am sure—these men not only of their means of livelihood, but, still more, of the opportunities that awaited then, and which their brains and their zeal would have enabled them to profit by. Many of the young men who have been discharged from the Royal Yards recently have shown marked ability. They have won Admiralty prizes, and, no doubt, would have followed in the footsteps of those great designers of the British Navy who have served their time in the Royal Yards had they been allowed to continue their connection with the Service. Not only have these apprentices been compulsorily discharged; they have received no financial compensation whatsoever, and, what is more, they have forfeited what would have been a certain pension, because in course of time these dockyard apprentices are always established, and every established man in the Royal Dockyard gets a pension to which he contributes partly himself and the State contributes its part, but it is as certain as night follows day that the ex-apprentice in the Royal Dockyard
becomes established, and that the established man gets a pension.
These men, however, have to leave the yard without any compensation whatsoever, and they have not been offered any alternative employment. They are even in a worse position than the engine-room artificers. Very few of them, indeed, are at work to-day, and certainly none are at work on their own trades. Moreover, the discharges of ex-apprentices within a few months of the completion of their time has had a most unfortunate effect upon the parents of other boys. These parents are beginning to consider whether it is wise to put their boys into the dockyard with such a prospect before them. In fact, letters from parents to this effect have already been received from headmasters at schools. This is a most unfortunate thing for the future of naval construction in this country. I have occupied a long time—not, I hope, without effect—and I am about to conclude. Before doing so, I want to make one further observation. If the Admiralty is unable to offer employment then let the State step in and give to these ex-apprentices, whether they be dockyard ex-apprentices, or engine-room artificers 5th class, these ex-naval engineer apprentices, these ex-artificer apprentices, the opportunity of entering the Civil Service. Both classes have passed the Civil Service examination. The ex-dockyard apprentices have, as I explained just now, received a special scholastic training in the dockyard schools. True, in both cases they are over age, but the question of age was waived in the case of the ex-service men, and, like them, these ex-apprentices may be described as victims of the War.
The other day the First Lord of the Admiralty very rightly told us, and I am sure he will tell us again to-night, that these discharges are not done of his own accord; they are done because of the Washington Treaty. That Treaty, as we all know, is one of the direct results of the War. Many of us in this House thought it was a very wise treaty. Some of us now are not altogether certain that it is quite so wise as we thought some time ago. At the same time, it is allowed by every Member of the House that the Washington Treaty was the result of the War. That being so, I see no reason whatsoever why the age limit should not
be suspended in the case of these ex-apprentices, and a chance given to these men who have lost all the future that was before them, all their expectations gone in a day, who have lost everything for which they have been trained, a training paid for, partly by their parents and partly by the state—lost all, without any compensation whatsoever. Surely we ought to give these men a chance of finding alternative and permanent employment in the Civil Service? That is my last word, with the exception of this: that, failing the possibility of the Civil Service as an alternative, then I call upon the Admiralty to award these men adequate compensation. If the Admiralty does not wish, or cannot, or if funds do not permit of an adequate award pay part to these ex-apprentices, who have been compulsorily discharged, if they cannot have that adequate compensation which justly belongs to them—then it is the duty of the Admiralty to find the alternative employment in some other direction, and to find them that employment immediately!

Major YERBURGH: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so under three principal difficulties as well as under various smaller ones. The first one is that this is my maiden effort in the House. I thank the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down for being so kind as to push me over the brink, because it is a thing I have put off a considerable time, and I think in the same way, if I may so, as the habit of speaking is liable to grow upon some people, so the habit of putting off the commencing of speaking in this House will grow too. In the second place, I was not given very much notice of being required for the work of seconding this Motion; but I will say this, the hon. Member who asked me said that it would be sufficient if I just got up and formally seconded the Motion. I have, however, a certain amount of Scotch in me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—Hon. Members opposite may be pleased to hear that, when I say Scotch I mean Scottish blood, and that Scottish blood did not merely induce me to speak—because that seems to be one of the Scottish attributes—but it did this; it made me realise that if I were to throw away the indulgence which this House always grants a first speech upon just a few formal words that
it would be the waste of a very good thing. Indeed, I supposed there would be a certain measure of indulgence still remaining to me in case I ever feel called upon to attempt again to address the House.
9.0 P.M.
The last speaker has had the experience from which he speaks. I also am a dockyard Member. Hon. Members have heard of Portland. I have a certain number, I will not say complaints, but suggestions in regard to Admiralty matters emanating from the stone walls of my town. But this particular matter, the question of the staff of apprentices of the dockyards has not been one of the questions to which I have given much attention. That, at any rate, has this advantage, that it puts me in a position of detachment. I am speaking of a matter about which I had no pressure brought to bear upon me in any way in my own constituency. It seems to me that whereas there are many disadvantages in serving any Government—and that is one of the reasons why I hope that we will never see the nationalisation of industry in this country—at the same time there is this compensation—for it is a compensation to some degree!—that you have continuity of employment. I am convinced that that continuity of employment is one of the most important matters to anyone seeking employment at the present time. In the higher ranks, at any rate, of the clerical staff of the Civil Service it is, I believe, the custom in the event of an Establishment being reduced for the men employed therein to be transferred to other Departments. Indeed, it was said in a period which has passed, under a former Government, that in the event of any Ministry being put an end to the same people sprung up in a different Ministry, composed of the same personnel, with a different name, in an adjacent but somewhat larger building. It seems to me that that continuity of employment was one of the chief reasons why many of these men enter the Government service, which service, however, has been unexpectedly put an end to.
I have recently had a letter from a voter in my constituency who served in the coastguard till he was compulsorily retired. He writes to me asking whether anything can be done in furtherance of
his appointment to the coast preventive force which he desires to enter. Here is a case where a man is undergoing a certain amount of unnecessary anxiety as to the future. Would it not be possible to adopt some kind of principle as is adopted in the clerical staffs of the Civil Service so as to guarantee to that man some further appointment without leaving to him to have anxiety and fear of not being able to get any employment at all? I should like, if I might, to refer to one particular instance, roughly relating to the provision made as regards the selection of the people for discharge. That is the case of officers' cooks. I mention this, because it is a case that has been personally brought to my notice. Officers' cooks have important duties to perform. If you want to see a monument to their work you have only to look around this House when the House is full. This man had the opportunity of obtaining civil employment, a very good opportunity if he had been able to leave the Government's service. This particular man had two years to run, and opportunities for civil employment were only open to him for about six months. If he could have left the Navy he would have got the job. Ordinary cooks could have done this, and some of them are now compulsorily retired. I am sorry that there is no way by which these men could become officers' cooks. The Navy, after winning a War like that one which we have won, should be able to surmount such a small difficulty as that. I am sure there were plenty of men capable of instructing these men cooks, and I regret that it was not possible to do anything in their particular case.
The hon. and gallant Member who moved this Resolution dealt so very fully with the matter that it would be impossible for me even to cross the "t's" or dot the "i's." In this Resolution I do not read of any real criticism of the Admiralty. Personally I have the greatest sympathy for the Admiralty, because it is a most disheartening task for any Minister of the Crown to reduce what was the finest Navy in the history of the world. It is a task, however, which it has bravely tackled. In rising to second this Resolution, I have endeavoured to add some weight to the First Lord's argument which he used when he attacked
other Government Departments, and if it does not seem to be presumption on my part, I would remind the First Lord that in the history of the past a considerable amount of success was obtained with a weapon very similar to that which I have employed, I refer to the considerable victory which was gained by Samson over the Phillistines.

Mr. FOOT: I would like first of all to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Southern Dorset (Major Yerburgh) upon having made his maiden speech, and I do not think there is any necessity for him to apologise. When he spoke of the attack on the Phillistines, my only regret is that there does not seem to be a sufficient attack in the Motion which has been moved. We all agree that the discharges are regrettable, and I hope we shall be able to strengthen the criticisms which were made on this subject by the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to the considerable hardship which at the present time is being inflicted upon these unhappy apprentices who are being discharged. I do not represent them in the same direct way as the hon. Member who moved this Resolution, but a good many of them are my neighbours. I know that in February last in the Devonport Dockyard there were more than 100 of these discharges. They are apprentices belonging mostly to two particular departments. They are men who secured the highest marks in those competitive examinations and then joined the Navy to do constructive and engineering work, and those are the men who have been sacrificed, while most of those who have been retained are those who did not get so high in the examination.
This is not the ordinary case of a workman being discharged because he is not required, because the Admiralty requirements have stimulated in Plymouth and other dockyard towns the local education authorities to provide special educational facilities, and in accordance with those requirements we have built up for the last 30 years special schools and classes. I have the honour to be the manager of one of the first schools in the country as far as its results are concerned. We have brought those schools to a high pitch of excellence, and from some of them we have been able to obtain the
highest positions in the country as far as dockyard apprentices are concerned. These boys are selected from thousands of elementary scholars, and their parents, who are proud of their boys being selected, make considerable sacrifices and deprive themselves in many cases of the necessaries of the home in order that one of their boys who may have been selected may qualify for such a position.
I can speak of the pride which is felt when a boy has secured first, second or third place in the whole of England, and naturally the parents thought by that that the boy would have some permanency in his future occupation. These boys are kept at school until they are 16, and after being kept at school up to this age at the expense of the parents they are then trained by the State. It is estimated that it costs the State £400 to see one of these boys through his apprenticeship. After all those hopes have been created, and the State has incurred this expense, the boy is no sooner through his apprenticeship than he is thrown upon the labour market. These lads who are now being discharged were taken on in the boom year of 1917. They were invited to enter at that time to meet national requirements. They have been trained in accordance with the dockyard practice and custom, and I think it can be said—and no doubt the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will agree in this—that taking the 100 boys who have just been discharged on finishing their apprenticeship at Devonport, they constitute as fine a body of trained workmen as could be found in any institution in the country.
They have special technical and practical knowledge, and it is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Devonport has said, that, while they are particularly qualified for their own work, they are not qualified for competition outside. They are handicapped in meeting the lads who have been apprenticed in the ordinary private shipbuilding firms. They are well qualified according to all modern requirements, and they are immediately experienced in all the experiments that were made during the War. It is not only a hardship to them, inasmuch as their careers are broken, but you are dispersing this body of workmen, and I know as a matter of fact that nothing has been more distressing than the trouble that has been caused in something like a hundred
homes in my town, where the boy, having gone there with all these expectations, and having gone through his apprenticeship and come to the time when it was thought that he would be able to help his parents who had helped him, is at the present time no help at all, but actually a burden upon the home.
That is the situation, and I suppose we can do very little to help the trouble that was occasioned last February, but I wish to ask the representatives of the Admiralty about the trouble that is foreshadowed. The fear that is being entertained, at any rate in my part of the country, is not only that we have just come through one crisis, where discharges have taken place, but we have learned that this year a similar number may be called upon to pass through the same experience, and if any words of reassurance can be given here to-night, at any rate to that extent, it would be a very great help. I am not here to say that we ought to keep these people in our employ if the necessity for their employment no longer exists. I do not think I have the right to make that request to the House. I quite agree that, if there is not the necessity for building ships, we have no right to ask that the public should be put to the expense of keeping in employment those for whom there is no employment. I do not make that suggestion, but I do not think the case is met simply by the statement that work is not to be done and we must get rid of these men. I think there are other alternatives, and I want the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty to consider just one or two suggestions.
I think that all Members of the House, whether they are concerned with dockyard constituencies or not, would, having regard to the hardship of the case, agree that we ought to exhaust every consideration. We ought to see how best we can ease the load which is falling upon these homes. The first suggestion I would make is this: Could not the established men whom we already have at the dockyards, and who wish to retire, be allowed to do so? What difficulty would there be in that? In the case of those who are over 55, why should not their pensions be made secure? Is it not likely that, if the opportunity were given to these older men, they might avail themselves of it, and make the way clear for the younger men to come along, with fresh ideas, who
in their careers would probably render the best service?

Mr. WRIGHT: Apply that generally.

Mr. FOOT: I want to deal with one difficulty at a time. I am quite prepared to consider the whole question. If my hon. Friend lived in my locality, and had coming to him, as some have come to me, the mothers of these boys, I am sure he would be anxious to consider what means could be adopted to relieve their distress. Again, could not the ex-naval men over 55 who are working in the dockyards, and who are already in receipt of pensions, be allowed their gratuity at the expiration of a lesser number of years than 15, as at present? Some of these older men might take their gratuity, and in that way room might be made for some of the younger men. I do not say that we can meet the cases of all who have been discharged, but if we can only do so in the case of half a dozen we should to that extent have lifted the load upon those homes. It is not only the actual hardship that is being caused to these young men at present, but it is quite certain that we are going to affect the character of the entrants in years to come. The boy who is cleverest, the boy who does brilliantly at school, will not be attracted in the same way to the dockyard if there is the prospect, after he has gone through his apprenticeship, that the skill he has acquired will not be used for the purpose for which it was intended.
There is one further question that I would put. What will be the policy of the Admiralty authorities regarding the vacancies which are now arising from normal wastage? That is a question upon which there is some anxiety there. What will be the policy of the Admiralty with regard to the vacancies that will occur during the next few months owing to normal wastage? I understand that the present numbers in the yard coincide with the numbers provided for in the Estimates for the current year. Will authority be given to the management of Devonport Dockyard to fill vacancies as they occur, and will consideration be given, in the filling of those vacancies, to these discharged apprentices who have not been able to secure alternative employment? I think that in that way, as vacancies arise during the year, it might be possible
to do something, and I think it would be in line with the assurance given by the First Lord of the Admiralty when he said, in discussing the Navy Estimates here only a week or two ago, that every effort would be made to obtain alternative employment for these people. I hope the mere fact that they have left the yard will not deprive them of the benefit of that assurance. Even if they have left, their skill remains with them. Some of them, I know, are at present eating their hearts out waiting for some employment that they cannot get, and I think they have a very strong claim upon the sympathy of the House. I am sure it would be the wish of no one in this House to see their careers broken, and, if hon. Members could only see some of the distress that has been occasioned, I am sure that all parties in this House would do everything in their power to give them some opportunity of fulfilling the career to which they have looked forward during the whole of the period of their apprenticeship.

Mr. W. WATSON: I wish to join with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) in congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Southern Dorset (Major Yerburgh) upon his maiden speech in this House. He had no reason to apologise for making that endeavour, and I hope the House will hear him on other important questions that come before it from time to time. This Motion raises a question of very great importance to men who in bygone years have considered that they had a permanency. In bygone years it was considered that the man who entered the Navy, or who was employed in a dockyard, could always depend upon employment in either the one or the other Service, until the time came for him to retire and take his pension. It seems that the day has gone by for that state of things, and it is wise that this House should consider what is to be the position of the men in these two Services in the future. There are two grades of men who are concerned in this discussion. There are the men engaged in the Royal Navy who have had to be compulsorily retired because of the terms of the Washington Agreement. In addition to those men, men have been compulsorily retired from the dockyards who two years ago considered that they were in perfectly safe employ.
I hope the Admiralty officials are going to consider more seriously the position of the men in these two Services. As the representative of a dockyard, I have taken a very keen interest in the discussions that have gone on in this House whenever dockyard or naval questions were under consideration, and I am deeply interested in the question that we are discussing here this evening. I am afraid that we will require to adopt other measures if we are going to secure permanent employment for the men either in the Royal Navy or employed in the Royal Dockyards in the future, much greater and bigger schemes than any that have been suggested during the discussion of this Resolution this evening. I am afraid, as I have suggested on other occasions, that the Admiralty will require to look ahead and to embark upon other enterprises than those on which they have been engaged in bygone years. I was interested in the suggestion made by the Mover of this Resolution that men should have been discharged pro ratâ from the Navy. He drew attention to the fact that the men who have been compulsorily retired from the Navy have been drawn almost entirely from the Navy in home waters, and that the men who have been serving in foreign stations are still being kept on in the Navy—that these men are not being asked to retire as have been the men in home waters. I was interested in that suggestion, because it reminded me of the fact that when the discharges were taking place in the dockyards, the same principle was not applied to all the dockyards in the country. There was one singled out for special consideration, the dockyard I represent in this House, Rosyth, which was much more largely affected by the reductions in personnel than the dockyards in other parts of the country. Therefore, it was quite interesting to me to hear the hon. Member who moved this Motion advocate a reduction pro ratâ of men engaged in the foreign stations compared with the men engaged in the home stations.
The ground has been fairly fully covered by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion and by my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Foot), and it is unnecessary for me to describe the training that ex-apprentices engaged in the dockyards require to undergo before they are allowed to engage in work in the dockyards.
The training, as has been pointed out, is a very severe and a very complete one, but it is training which only fits these men for work in the Royal Dockyards. I am afraid that in the future the training that apprentices will require to get in the dockyards, that is assuming that the dockyards are to be used to their fullest capacity, will have to be a very different training from that which they have received in bygone years. The Admiralty, I am afraid, will require to train these boys in such a way that they will be capable either of doing the necessary work in the dockyards or work that will be necessary in a private yard. It is most unfair that after a lad has served his apprenticeship in a dockyard and after all the money has been spent on him, partly by the State and partly by his parents or guardians, that he should be turned out and in such a position as this be quite unqualified to take up work in a private yard, even if he had the opportunity to take up that work. I am afraid that the training that the dockyard apprentices will require to get in the years to come will have to be of such a character as will fit them for work other than the work that they have been trained to in bygone days.
There is one word of praise I would like to give to the officials of the Admiralty so far as the little dockyard I represent is concerned. When the reductions took place at Rosyth a considerable number of men were travelling from Edinburgh, Kirkcaldy, and other outlying places. A number of apprentices were also travelling from outlying places, and the question arose as to whether the Admiralty were justified in paying the travelling expenses of these apprentices. The apprentices at Rosyth were in my opinion much worse circumstanced than apprentices in other parts of the country. These apprentices in many cases were living in lodgings at Rosyth while their parents or guardians were in the south of England. They had that particular handicap to begin with, but in addition to that some of these apprentices were living in Edinburgh, and I want to thank the officials of the Admiralty for giving travelling facilities to the apprentices who were living in Edinburgh and were employed in Rosyth dockyard. It is not often that I have the pleasure of congratulating or praising the officials of the Admiralty for the things they do for
Rosyth, but I want to thank them at any rate for giving these facilities to the apprentices living at Edinburgh to complete their training in the dockyard.
What I am really concerned about is what is going to happen to the apprentices after they are trained in the dockyard, what is the Admiralty going to do to ensure that after these lads have made all the sacrifices you can expect them to make and that their parents have made to qualify them for taking up positions in the dockyards, what is to become of these lads after they have been trained. I hope we are going to have something like permanency assured to these men as it has been assured to their fathers in days that have gone by. I am afraid that the policy being pursued by the Admiralty is not one that is going to ensure that in the future. As a matter of fact, I think that the policy they have been pursuing for some time is a policy which is going to lead to less men being employed in the dockyard instead of more. I am not quite sure that that policy would be received with very great appreciation on the benches on this side of the House. We wish to see very considerable reductions in armaments. We wish to see a policy of that kind adopted, but, at the same time, we are not foolish enough to say that the Admiralty ought to scrap the Navy and the dockyards and that the War Office officials should scrap their organisations until we have security, or something like security, in the international field. So long as international politics remain as they are at the moment, we require to keep our defensive organisations up to the very highest pitch of efficiency.
I was saying, however, that I do not consider that the policy the Admiralty has been pursuing is a policy which is going to lead to more men being employed in the dockyards. For instance, the policy of adopting piece-work in the dockyards has been developed during recent months, and if that policy is pursued I am afraid that, instead of having more men engaged, we are going to have far fewer men employed in the dockyards in this country. There are several ways, I think, in which more employment could be obtained for the dockyards. We on these benches want to see our dockyards used to the fullest extent,
not necessarily for the building or repairing of war ships, but for doing other necessary work for the nation. At Rosyth we have a new and up-to-date dockyard. I agree it is not completed, but it is one of the finest dockyards we have in the country. I am not going to enter into discussions with others representing dockyards as to whether or not it is the only dockyard that can berth the "Hood" or other ships of that description, but here we have a new dockyard with the latest machinery which has been introduced, and I am afraid we are going to see a very considerable part of it standing unused. We have accommodation there for dry docking the biggest ships in the Navy. We have excellent dry docking accommodation, and it is proposed to construct a dry dock at a shipbuilding yard on the Forth, a very few miles away. Might I suggest to the representatives of the Admiralty that they might consider the question of having dry docking done for commercial purposes at Rosyth? It may be impossible, but at any rate the accommodation is there. There is not a dry dock in the East of Scotland, and when there is accommodation there it is foolishness on the part of even private enterprise to build a dry dock within a mile or two of where we have some of the best accommodation in the whole country.
We are told it is impracticable to do commercial work in a dockyard, but unless the Admiralty branch out in the direction of doing commercial work in the dockyards, there is not going to be a very bright prospect for the apprentices. If we should get another instalment of the Washington Peace Treaty, if we should get another reduction in armaments—the scrapping, perhaps, of the two battleships which are being built at present—what is going to happen to the dockyards and the men who are employed in them then. Already you have reduced your dockyards by 10,000 men. Supposing another wave of Washington comes along and throws out another 10,000 or 20,000 men from the dockyards, what is going, to become of them then? I think instead of talking about preparing dockyards for building and repairing battleships, the dockyards ought to be prepared for something else. I am very pleased to be able to welcome such a Motion as this. I want to read again the latter part of this Motion:
It is the duty of the Government to do all that lies in its power to assist all such
men so discharged in as practical a manner as possible, preferably by way of finding them immediate alternative employment.
I hope when the next prevention of unemployment Resolution comes before the House we shall find the Mover of this Motion voting with us. I am not sure that he voted with us on the last occasion.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: This Motion is altogether different from the Motion the other night. This refers to men who are compulsorily retired.

Mr. WATSON: I quite agree, but men in private employment are compulsorily retired in exactly the same way. It is merely because the employer has no further use for them that those men are discharged from their employment, and it is for exactly the same reason, that they are no longer required in the dockyards, that these men have been compulsorily retired, so I hope the next time we are discussing unemployment the hon. Gentleman will support us as heartily as we are prepared to support his Motion.

Mr. PRIVETT: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Southern Dorset (Major Yerburgh), I am rising to make a maiden effort with a certain amount of diffidence, but I know I can rely on the generosity of the House, which is always extended to a newcomer. I feel perhaps a double diffidence, because earlier in the evening I heard two Members expressing sympathy with one another because it was a dockyard Members' night. I agree wholly with the Motion. Perhaps I rather more agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) when he says there is not sufficient punch in it. I should like to join with the hon. Member opposite in his congratulations to the officials of the Admiralty, and I should particularly like to express my thanks to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who deputises for the First Lord. I have had to take many cases to him, and I have found he is a man with a very large heart who is able to do unkind things in a kind way. Each dockyard Member probably deals with his own dockyard, and I want to deal with the dockyard in my own town. I represent the industrial class in my town where probably the large majority of the dockyard men reside, and it is very sad indeed to see so many young men who have been turned off, not only from the dockyard, but from the Navy as well. The hon.
Member opposite said that a man discharged from private employment was in a similar position to those discharged from the Admiralty. In many respects that is so, but we have to bear in mind that an individual who once gets under the State authority, in no matter what Department, thinks he is safe for life. In Portsmouth the dockyard is the one great industry. In other big industrial centres you may have more unemployment than we have at the moment, but when the trade boom comes, as it will come, large industrial towns will feel the benefit, and have their unemployment reduced, while, on the other hand, Portsmouth, from the way in which the Navy is developing to-day, will be in a worse plight than it is in at present.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. W. Watson) said that the Admiralty should develop commercial shipbuilding. We have suggested that to the Admiralty for Portsmouth, and they say, "No, we want the harbour and the dockyard for Admiralty work." We are not inclined in Portsmouth to disagree with the Admiralty in that respect. We are proud of the fact that Portsmouth is the premier naval dockyard of the world and hope that it will long continue to maintain that position. If the Admiralty are going to maintain the position of Portsmouth as an Admiralty dockyard, they must provide the men with work. Quite recently, in order to develop commercial shipbuilding, the Admiralty undertook certain work, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who replied to my questions in regard to the charges very rightly said that the Admiralty cannot enter into competition with private dockyards, but, after all, unemployment and all other pay comes out of the one coffer, and the Government should at least charge the same as would be charged in private dockyards, and not two or three times as much. The Government have promised to look carefully into the matter, and I hope that they will do so.
I heard to-day from Portsmouth that 400 men were to be discharged this week additional to 700 men discharged last week. I have seen a letter from the head of a shipping company saying that they are sending no more ships to Portsmouth because the charges for floating docks are too high. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bear that in mind and do what he can for
Portsmouth. There is another matter which is very hard on naval and dockyard men. They have saved their money and bought their houses in Portsmouth. That is an additional burden at the moment, because if they move to other towns they are not able to sell their houses. While we do not ask in Portsmouth for a large extension of the dockyard, we do say that we should at least keep it in a fair state of repair. It is well known that the sea wall at the north corner is in a very dangerous state. For some years the Admiralty have not been able to berth ships there. If this work was put in hand it would mean work for 1,000 men for 12 months, and would not be wasting money, but only spending money to save money, because, if you leave this work much longer, according to the reports of your own officials, you will have the wall slipping into the sea. When the First Lord made his statement in March he assured the House that there would be no more discharges from the dockyard. Since then, though perhaps you will say that these men were only taken on temporarily, he took on some 400 men last November and December and discharged them in March. I hope that he will be able to see his way to begin reinstating them.
In 1913 the then First Lord, I think Mr. Churchill, with a loud flourish of trumpets said that they were going to bring the lower deck into the ward room and they promoted more than 100 men to be lieutenants. These men were really the brains of the lower deck. They were only promoted after passing a stiff examination, and in face of great opposition. These men have now all been discharged. While we regret the discharge of the officers of the executive branch proper we do feel that these men should not have been discharged. They are now in a worse position than if they had not sat for their examination and been promoted to lieutenants, because they would have retained, perhaps, their old position. Quite recently I heard of a lieutenant offering his services as a valet to a flag officer, while another officer was selling fruit in the streets of Portsmouth.
The case of the 5th class engine-room artificers has been put forcibly on all sides. The Member for Bodmin, and the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, pointed
out the very stiff examination the boys had to pass for the dockyard, but they omitted to mention that the boys of the "Fisgard" have to pass an even stiffer examination. These boys' parents have made real sacrifices on behalf of their sons. The parents at the time had to sign them on for 12 years, when they joined the "Fisgard," and the boys, when they attained the age of 18, had to sign for 12 years, and now we are told that under the Naval Enlistment Act, 1853, the Admiralty have the right of ruining these boys' careers. These boys were only trained for one class of work, and they have sent them out into the streets. The hon. and gallant Gentleman below me did ask the Air Minister to find places for these young fellows in the Air Service equal to what they had in the Navy, and the Air Minister promised to do so, but unfortunately he did not do so. We are told that only a few of them applied. The reason is that they were offered berths far below what they had been trained for in the Navy. We have been told that they were not equal to the test. I have seen the young men who were put to the test. Is it fair to the Admiralty or to this House, when we consider the money which has been spent on these lads, to say that they are not equal to welding two pieces of iron together? That is absolutely wrong, and they have not had a fair chance. I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman to endeavour, now that he has taken these boys back into the dockyard to finish their time—they are supposed to leave again in June—in consultation with the First Lord, to keep these young men in the Navy for the next two or three years, at least. They are really well trained and skilled men, and I am sure the Admiralty will not regret it if they take them back again.
I hope the Admiralty will be able, as early as possible, to anticipate the work they require on the "Victory," in order to employ more shipwrights at Portsmouth. At the moment, the shipwrights are, to a very large number, out of employment. Perhaps more than any other trade. If that work could be hastened, we should all be very glad. Of course, the Navy is very unsettled, and the dockyard towns are very unsettled. We were told that the League of Nations was going to work wonders for us, but I am certain
Of this, no matter how many Leagues of Nations you have you will always want your Royal Navy to defend these shores and those of the Dominions.

Mr. DUNCAN: I have always taken a very keen interest in the Navy, and considering that a large number of men who follow the same trade as myself are in the Navy, as artificers, I naturally feel a kindly interest in their welfare whilst they are serving in His Majesty's Navy. The appeal that has been made here does not seem likely to receive any real response. After all, the deliberate policy of the Admiralty in this country, for many years, has been to make the dockyard towns exclusively Government dockyard towns. The result is that when the Washington Treaty is entered into, it simply means that the dockyard towns are absolutely helpless, and there is no other employment for these people to follow, as they might have done had there been any ordinary industrial avocation in those various centres. Go to Chatham, Portsmouth, or Devonport; hardly anyone knows of any manufactures in those places. The result is that those towns are going to be helpless because of the enormous number of discharges. There is not the slightest doubt that what is happening in those towns is striking consternation into the hearts and homes of thousands of people. They have no prospect at all in the future, and, as has been pointed out, many of them have bought their homes. No doubt, they have committed themselves in a thousand ways, apart altogether from that. Here is the result of the Washington Agreement. They are to be struck down, without any possible prospect at all.
The point that concerns me is this. It must be obvious to anybody, on a moment's reflection, that whoever was responsible for the policy of this country at Washington certainly did not look very far ahead, and did not consider very much the welfare of the people who were employed either at Devonport, Portsmouth, Chatham or the other dockyard towns. After all, this country is a country with a history behind it. It has had a Navy for a great many years longer than any other country. It has taken hundreds of years to build up that Navy, and one would have imagined that when some agreement for disarmament was entered into, some foresight would have been shown and I
some consideration displayed for the position of the various dockyard towns in this country, and all that they implied on the human factor. Is it not obvious, to anyone listening to this discussion to-night, so far as the men engaged in the dockyard towns are concerned, and the men who are giving their lives to the Navy—because, there is no doubt about it, the men entering Government employ give their lives to the Service—that the lack of consideration is, when one comes to examine it, really inhumanly brutal? Worse than that, it throws these people on an empty labour market just when that market is at its worst.
10.0 P.M.
I am not one of those who is inclined to take a very hopeful view of the situation, even as it is. There are millions of money and tremendous quantities of plant in these various dockyard towns. Take Rosyth, which was an illustration given by the previous speaker. There are floating docks, dry docks, and all the rest of it there. The hon. Member was hopeful enough to imagine that the Admiralty might put those things to some useful service. It seems to me the most hopeless proposition that anyone could suggest in the House of Commons that they were going to set their hands to do something useful with the plant which the nation has provided. What a difference might be brought about if the ordinary commercial mind were directed toward finding a solution of the difficulty in the dockyard towns. There are really very considerable possibilities of finding employment for a very large number of these men, if the Admiralty authorities would only try to get out of their old stride, which has been in existence ever since the Admiralty has been in existence, and the object of which is to move as slowly as they possibly can, and, if somebody can put them on to a slower method still, to adopt that method. That seems to be the plan which has been adopted in all the dockyard towns, so far as my own experience goes. I know something about the business. Thousands of members in my own union are in the dockyard towns, and this is hitting these people very hard, indeed.
I should be a good deal easier in my mind if I could feel that those at the head of the Admiralty would bring some consideration to bear in these matters:
would keep politics out of their minds for a moment or so, and would see if they could not get their minds to work on something like commercial lines, and help these people to meet their difficulties. Anyone who knows anything about dockyard life at all knows that there are plenty of young men whose lives are ruined under the system and plan upon which the dockyards are being run. That system is entirely different from the ordinary commercial yard. This has been the set policy of the Admiralty—to my knowledge at any rate—for at least 17 years. They have carried the dockyards on on their own particular lines, exclusively. The management of the yards and the arranging of the jobs for the workpeople, who are producing ships of war, were entirely different from any other shipyard in this country. Therefore we can understand, when these men are thrown out of employment in the various dockyard towns, that they have an exceedingly difficult job indeed to find employment in an ordinary commercial shipyard.
Therefore that is all the more reason why the Admiralty should set their wits to work and see if they cannot bring into use a plant that is in these dockyards. If they cannot use it, surely the dog in the manger policy ought not to be persisted in at this moment. They might, at least, give other people a chance of using it, and in this way find employment for a large number of these men. What is to be the effect of the cutting down of the Navy on the future of places like Plymouth, Devonport, Portsmouth and Rosyth? What future will these places have? They can only be secondary seaside resorts in years to come. The Admiralty should set their house in order. There is nobody who has a greater responsibility towards these men than the present Admiralty, and I do hope they will show some real consideration in this matter and consider the human element involved and see if they cannot do something to relieve the very difficult situation that has arisen.

Mr. HOHLER: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but I thought I should do so for a few moments. I really make this speech because I am attacked in my constituency by a Labour Member who comes down there. I welcome him
there, but I felt it would not be right that they should be able to say that I did not rise on this particular occasion. They have a way of putting things which in my view might be put otherwise. In regard to the matter of this Debate, the hon. Member who last spoke, if I may say so very respectfully, does not seem to have appreciated the present position. When he talks of putting dockyards to commercial business I am afraid he has not reflected upon or considered the subject. That was the suggestion made at the last Election by my Socialist opponent. In regard to the matters that have been raised to-night, I gather they dealt with the discharges from His Majesty's Navy and from the Dockyards, more especially the apprentices who entered the Navy. I spoke on this matter on the Admiralty Estimates, and the First Lord then promised to give it every consideration. He undertook he would endeavour to find alternative employment, so far as it was in his power, by transfer or otherwise, for every man discharged from the Navy and for the ex-apprentices, and that he would endeavour to get them transferred with the assistance of the Air Force to the Air Force. Speaking for myself, I am perfectly confident that the First Lord has not played these men false. I believe he has given a promise which he will faithfully carry out to the best of his ability. In these circumstances I have to say that in my experience, so far as Chatham is concerned, the administration of the Admiralty has never been more humane and has never endeavoured to deal better with the situation than the present administration. I have nothing but praise for what the Admiralty have done in my constituency, and I believe that is a feeling that is shared in my constituency. One of the mayors of the two boroughs went out of his way to congratulate the First Lord upon what he had done. In saying that, I am satisfied that he will not abate one jot or iota in his endeavours to get these men employment. I just intervened—I hope I have not been too long—as I wanted to make my position clear when the Labour Members come down to my constituency.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): I would like to say that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the
Admiralty and myself appreciate the note which has been struck by the last speaker and the atmosphere in which I have to reply. In the course of this Debate a great many and varied points have been opened up, and in my reply I shall endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability, but I must first address myself to the Motion before the House. This Motion was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). We have heard him before in this House and we are always glad to welcome his interventions in Debate. It was seconded by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southern Dorset (Major Yerburgh) and, if I may, I would like to congratulate him on behalf of the House, I think very warmly, on his maiden speech. It was an amusing and well-instructed speech and recalled to a good many of us who have been in this House for some time the hon. and gallant Gentleman's father, who did so much for the Navy in the capacity of chairman of the Navy League and who for many years was an able and popular Member of this House. I recommend this to the hon. Gentlemen opposite as a good case of heredity.
The first part of the Motion asks the House to regret the necessity for compulsory discharges. Let me say at once that nobody regrets it more than the Board of Admiralty itself. They are our own people, men who have had a brilliant career in the past, men of great promise for the future, and we had to get rid of them, and it has been a heartbreaking job to do so. That I do assure the House. I wish I had the power of language adequately to express our regret. Since the War, whatever hon. Gentlemen may think who are out of office, I can assure them that the holding of office has not been a very pleasant task, and this work of getting rid of a large number of men in the dockyards and Royal Navy has been the culminating point in unpleasantness. It has been the bitterest experience in what are called the sweets of office. I sometimes think that this phrase must have been coined at the same time as someone said the House of Commons was the best club in Europe. The necessity for this has been thrust upon us. The world's situation, the urgent need for economy, and the Washington Treaty have all combined to force a reduction
of the Navy and a consequent reduction in its personnel. I should like to give to the House the numbers of the Royal Navy that we have had to reduce—officers 1,996, men 12,272. When hon. Members say that this has caused a feeling of grievance, I would point out that 69.3 per cent. of officers went voluntarily, and that it would have been a very much smaller number if it had not included the great majority of warrant officers, for whom we make special terms, and the officers to whom reference has been made to-night. To listen to some hon. Members one would think that we had compulsorily retired the whole of the men of the Navy. 95.5 per cent. of these men retired voluntarily, leaving a very small percentage indeed to be retired compulsorily. I maintain that that shows that the vast majority were perfectly contented with the terms and with the gratuity, and that it is an extraordinary tribute to the fair way in which the officers of the Admiralty have carried out this most distasteful task. In the case of a reduction of personnel of such magnitude it might reasonably have been expected that there would have been a very general sense of grievance. But this has not been the case. It shows, at all events, that the most loyal body of men in all the world have understood the great difficulties which the Admiralty have had to face, and have understood also that we have obtained for them the most generous terms that we could obtain.
When I was in the Navy I was brought up to the idea that a little cherub sits up aloft, and looks after the destiny of all of us at sea. The idea of this invisible and benign being was a very comforting one. But when I became a Member of Parliament I received three distinct shocks. The first was when I saw this cherub materialise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] The second shock was when I found there was not one, but a lot of them, and not confined to one sex. The third shock was when I found that they all represented dockyard constituencies. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, I can testify in the most thorough manner to the efficient way in which my hon. Friends look after their constituents. I always thought that the maximum number of letters passed between an engaged couple, and that possibly two a day was the limit. But I consider any day of mine ill-spent unless
I have received from, and despatched at least 15 letters to, my various suitors in this House.
I now come to the specific points raised by the Mover of this Motion. First, as to engine-room artificers, fifth class. In making the reductions that were forced upon us we had to examine the numbers in every grade and every class. We had to see how many men were surplus in each of those grades, and we had most reluctantly to get rid of them. The engine-room artificers, fifth class, had to take their chance along with everybody else, and not nearly so many of them have been compulsorily discharged as the House may have been led to believe by some of the speeches made to-night. Actually only 47 were compulsorily discharged. What have we done for these men? That was another question asked from all quarters of the House. As I have said, 47 were compulsorily discharged, and after long negotiation with the Air Ministry we found 80 jobs, but only 26 of these men volunteered. It is not our fault if they did not accept the terms offered by the Royal Air Force. If they did not think the terms good enough and rejected them, it is no use talking about these men being turned on the street. We have done more than that. We have given permission to all these men to go back into the dockyards and have opportunities for completing their apprenticeships. These are all skilled men taught by the Admiralty. They all belong to a skilled trade, and I suggest they are in a very much better position than a great many other men in this country who served this country during the War. I think a little undue weight has been given to this question.
I now come to the other specific point raised by my hon. Friend who moved the Resolution, namely, the discharge of ex-apprentices from the Royal Dockyards. These discharges, which have given rise to many of the speeches to-night, were made at Devonport, and affected about 100 ex-apprentices, 85 of whom were shipwrights. Let me answer on this point the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution, the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. W. Watson) and the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Duncan). All these three hon. Members gave the impression to the House that men who
had been trained in the dockyards were no good for private work.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I did not say they were no good. I said they could not be employed.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I say they can be employed. They have learned all about their work, and have received much better instruction than the ordinary shipwright in a private yard.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: They could not be employed because there was no work for them.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The only reason for these discharges was that there was a redundancy of workmen in the trades to which the men in question belonged. We did not reduce the total number all round and about 80 labourers were entered at the same time that these men were discharged. I can give a general assurance that we are down to bedrock numbers, but I cannot give any assurance that we shall not have a redundancy in one branch or another. I hope not. I do not wish, however, to deal with the general question of reduction, but we had to discharge these men. The retention of these ex-apprentices would have involved either the employment of more men than we required, or the discharge of other men with better claims and probably greater responsibilities. It has been done before. One of my hon. Friends suggested that this was an innovation, but that is not so. What have we done to try to find alternative employment for this branch? First we tried all the other yards to see if we could get them in there, and we failed. Here I can assure the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) that, in the event of additional work being required at a future date, the Department will be only too ready to consider applications from the ex-apprentices for further employment in the dockyards.

Mr. FOOT: Would that apply also to filling up vacancies caused by normal wastage?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am afraid wastage has already been taken into account and discounted. Endeavours have been and are being made to find employment for some of these men in the Royal Air Force, but here I cannot give any definite hope of them finding that employment; and further than that, we have allowed these men to finish their
apprenticeship. It has been said that these men have cost their parents a great deal, but they have coat their parents very little indeed. Perhaps in the first year, when they were only boys of 14 and getting 12s. a week, their parents could not keep them on that, but it rises to 32s., and the hon. Member for Bodmin himself said the State had spent about £400 on their training. Here again we are very sorry indeed that these young men have had to go, but we have not turned them adrift on a friendless world; we have turned them out well educated, knowing their trades thoroughly, and having had a sound education at the cost of the State, and here again I suggest that the men comprised in these two examples that my hon. Friends have stretched so much to-night are in a very favourable condition compared with a great many unfortunate men in this country to-day.
May I say one word about what we are trying to do to find employment for any men discharged from the Royal Navy? This is rather outside the scope of the Motion, as the last part of the Motion deals only with those compulsorily discharged, and I am dealing with men who went voluntarily and also men who were compulsorily discharged I want to give the National Association for the Employment of Regular Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen the best advertisement that I can. It is a very good society. We have got a Treasury grant for them, and they have received most generous contributions from the Royal Naval Benevolent Fund. From 1st April, 1922, to 31st March, 1923, they found places for 1,540 men, and in addition, more than 500 men were placed in temporary employment. I want to call the attention of all employers to this, that it should be observed that only men of proved character are accepted for registration, that there are no fees asked from employers or men, and—I should like to make a special point of this—that voluntary subscriptions would be gratefully received.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The hon. and gallant Member has not answered two points that I put. One was whether or not he would consider the question of establishing the apprentices in the dockyards in the future, and the other was whether he would allow them to compete in the Civil Service.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I could not possibly give answers on the spot to very complicated questions of that sort, but my hon. Friends who have made valuable suggestions can rest assured that they will receive the most careful consideration of the Admiralty. I cannot say more than that now, and I think my hon. Friends who have had a good deal of correspondence with me know that I try to do what I can. As I sit in my room at the Admiralty I feel sometimes like, I think it was, Faithful, but I have not read my "Pilgrim's Progress" for some time. On one shoulder sat an angel, and on the other shoulder sat a devil, each trying to draw him in opposite directions. On one of my shoulders I am continually reminded of a little group of dockyard Members, and my heart goes out to what they want every time. But on my other shoulder sits a very large man in the shape of Sir Eric Geddes, representing a good deal of public opinion, and I sometimes find my head, which would like to follow my heart, pulled back. We are doing what we can, and I can promise the House that we shall continue so to do. We can agree most thoroughly and most heartily to the first part of this Motion. We are trying to carry out the spirit of the second part. I do ask the House to believe that, and, in view of that, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw this Motion, and that the House will allow him to do so.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: After having listened to the very sympathetic reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, and having considered very carefully what he has said, the endeavour he has made to answer all the questions that have been put to him, and the desire to find employment for these two classes of men, namely, the ex-artificer apprentices and the ex-dockyard apprentices, I would like to ask the House to allow me to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LAND VALUES (RATING AND TAXATION).

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: I beg to move,
That this House is of opinion that the value of land apart from improvements
belongs of right to the whole community and is a proper source of public revenue; requests the Government to make a complete valuation of the land showing its present true market value apart from improvements so that taxation and rating of land values may displace the taxes, obstructive to industry and harmful to trade, that are now levied by Parliament and the local authorities; recognises that this reform has been practically and successfully initiated in other countries; and declares that it is urgently demanded in this country as a just and expedient method for opening new avenues to steady employment, encouraging house building, restoring prosperity to agriculture, and assuring to industry the fruits of industry.
Although the time at my disposal to-night is very short, I am glad to have an opportunity of initiating a discussion upon what I venture to describe as one of the most pressing of our domestic problems. The problem of the land is one which cries aloud for solution, and however much we may be entitled to boast of our progress in other directions, I think it may be safely said that our land system does not reflect very great credit upon our sense of social justice. Those who, like myself, have for many years past believed in the principle which is outlined in my Motion, were hoping, in the days when the land campaign was causing angry passions to surge in the breasts of certain Members, that the problem was at last going to be tackled, and, although the Land Duties of the Budget of 1910 were thrown overboard, like so many other proposals by the Coalition Government, there are many of us on these benches who still believe that only by boldly tackling this problem of the land can we do away with many of the difficulties which beset us at the present moment. There are some who ask, "Why treat the land differently from any other commodity?" The answer is, that it differs from everything else in the world. It is here, as it was put here. We cannot add to it, and we cannot take away from it, and surely it is not unfair to suggest that the increase in the value of land, which is brought about by the energy and enterprise of the community, belongs as a right to the community, and is a proper source of public revenue.
It is a remarkable fact that whereas many years ago the land was paying a fair share of local taxation, as the land has become more valuable by the activities of the many for the enrichment
of the few, it has been paying less and less of the burdens of local taxation. If there had been, years ago, a general recognition of the principle outlined in the Motion under discussion, I think many of the difficulties, such as housing, unemployment, and the under-cultivation of land, would not have arisen. What does the taxation of land values really mean? It might be described in another way as the exemption of improvements from taxation. A tax upon land values is not a tax upon land at all. It is a tax upon the value of land. This is something which the opponents of this principle have failed, or do not desire, to understand. Indeed, in my own constituency, which is entirely agricultural, my advocacy of this principle was construed as inferring a desire on my part to place still greater burdens on agricultural land, whereas it is not difficult to prove—and I hope I may succeed in doing so before I sit down—that so far from that being the case, the effect would be so beneficial, that very little would be heard in the future of the agitation which is now going on in the agricultural districts as to the unfair incidence of local taxation. The tax would, of course, fall with great severity upon valuable land, not in proportion to the use made of that particular land, but in proportion to its value. It would be a tax on the ownership of land; in other words, the State would take what would otherwise go to the owner. There would be free scope for individual energy and initiative because there would be no taxation as at present upon the results of that energy and initiative; the only value that would be taken into consideration would be the value of the bare land, having regard to its position, public improvements, etc. The farmer, for instance, who was occupying a certain acreage, no matter to what extent he used his brains and employed scientific methods, would be rated exactly on the same basis as would the occupier of a similar amount of land which he kept under-cultivated. The effect would be that there would be no discouragement, as at present, of skilful and scientific farming, but every discouragement to bad farming, because there would be no possibility under this plan of appeals being made, as at present successfully, for reduced taxation based upon the lower assessable value through under-cultivation or other neglect.
The man in a city who erected a building on a certain site and in so doing gave employment, and caused money to be circulated, would be taxed exactly on the same basis as a man who kept a similar site idle. The effect would be that it would not pay a man to withhold land from the community, but if he did, he would have to pay, as I submit he ought to do, for the privilege of so doing. In my opinion ownership of land imposes on the owner sacred obligations, and surely, no system ought to be tolerated in any country which allows a man to withhold land from the community with impunity, as he is able to do at the present time in this country. I submit that a good many of our housing difficulties would not have arisen had it not been for the problem of the land. Many instances have been given in this House of the enormous rise in the value of land owing to the housing necessities of the people. There is no time for me to-night to give many instances, but I think just a few are necessary, not only as a reminder but by way of reinforcing the arguments which I am bringing forward.
The London County Council, for instance, paid £295,544 for housing land at Becontree which was previously assessed at £3,950. They paid £50,339 for a housing site at Bellingham where the assessment was £490. They paid £120,000 for housing land at Roehampton which previously had been assessed at £957. The whole of the 2,450 acres for which the London County Council paid £465,883 were assessed at £5,031. Surely both these valuations cannot be correct? Either the purchase price, calculated upon 20 years' purchase, should have been something in the neighbourhood of £100,000 or the assessment value should have been something like £23,000. In either alternative, I submit that the ratepayers would have had the benefit; but the story is not complete. One has to reckon with the enormous tariff which is levied upon these houses when they are erected. In the case of the 2,450 acres referred to, allowing for the building, say, of 12 houses per acre—and incidentally I hope that no more than 12 houses per acre will be built under the Housing Bill—12 houses per acre, at an assessment of £20 per house, we find that the assessment value would go up from £5,031 to £588,000 per annum. This is some
measure of the burden placed at the present time upon the building of houses which, I submit, could be much reduced by the adoption of a plan for the rating and taxing of land values. The prices charged for land in many cases were nothing but an exploitation of the dire needs of the people, and surely there cannot be any injustice in a system which lays down as a cardinal principle that the value attaching to land, as exemplified by the price asked for it when it is required for housing sites, should be the value upon which the owners should pay their contribution to local taxation.
Can it be said that the owners of the land have done anything to improve the value of it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Hon. Members opposite will have an opportunity of showing how it can be said that they have done anything to improve the value of such land. Surely it is the application of labour to land which creates the wealth, and not only has labour been increasing the wealth of the land, but the workers have had to carry an ever-increasing share of the burdens of local taxation. When it is proposed to change any system the question always arises as to whether it is just, but justice is apt at times to assume very distorted proportions, and I cannot help thinking that our sense of justice in this matter has been sadly warped by habit. We should ask, not is it wise, but is it right that the present system should continue. How would the rating of land values affect agriculture. It is generally admitted that the occupiers of agricultural land require for their business an amount of rateable property which is large in accordance with their ability to pay, and as such they have to carry an undue share of the burden of local taxation. The late Lord St. Aldwyn, in giving evidence before a departmental Committee on Local Taxation, said that:
The burden of the rates pressed more heavily upon the poorer than the wealthier classes.
Surely in no instance is this more exemplified than in the case of the small occupiers of agricultural land. Successful farming depends largely upon individual energy and initiative, and there can be no satisfaction in the conduct of any business which is being constantly penalised for energy and enterprise. The substitution of the present system by a tax upon the site value of the land
would in my opinion remove many of the anomalies of which the farming community rightly complain. They say quite rightly at the present moment that they have to bear far too great a share of the cost of education, road maintenance, and the police. What could be fairer than a tax upon site values and the entire elimination of these local charges which are being levied now for national purposes? The taxation of land values would be a tax upon the natural opportunity. A farm with buildings valued at three-fourths of the whole would get relief to the extent of three-fourths of the original assessment, on a farm where buildings were valued at one-half of the whole property a reduction of one-half of the original assessment would be obtained.
The smallholder is penalised under our present system even more. Some years ago a county council not very far away took over 660 acres of land with the very laudable idea of converting it into 27 small holdings. The assessment before the establishment of the small holdings was £150 per annum, but the money expended upon the setting up and equipment of those holdings was made the excuse for increased taxation, and the assessment went up from £150 to £580. In all cases the expenditure of money is made an excuse for imposing extra taxation upon the smallholders whereas we know very well that collectively these smallholders are far less able to pay taxes than the owner of the estate, who, in any case, would have been called upon to pay a much smaller sum. In many successful agricultural countries—and I would like to emphasise this, because it is always argued that this proposal is going to be injurious to agriculture—the taxation of land values is in practical operation. In Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, a large part of New Zealand. Denmark, and throughout the western provinces of Canada, the taxation of improvements is unknown. In the Transvaal, many village councils, which correspond to the shires in this country, the authorities have availed themselves of their optional powers to levy a tax upon site values. In Denmark the agitation for the taxation of land values which was incorporated in an Act of Parliament in August of last year, was conducted mainly
by the peasant proprietors, to whom the success of agriculture was absolutely vital.
In Canada, which the opponents of this principle very often refer to as an indication of failure, the system has, indeed, most justified the expectations that were held in regard to it. In all of the large towns and cities west of Manitoba, by far the largest proportion of the rate revenue is derived from a tax upon the site value of the land. There is no time to-night, unfortunately, to deal with all the popular arguments against this principle. Its opponents refer to the failure of the land duties in the Budget of 1910. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to hear that applause, because the answer to that sort of argument is that the Budget of 1910 did not contain, by any stretch of the imagination, the principle which I am asking the House now to affirm. The proposal to tax land values is a proposal to levy a uniform tax upon all land, whether used or not, and to remit a corresponding amount of taxation which is now being levied on improvements and upon trade and industry. There was nothing of this sort in the Budget of 1910. The Land Duties therein incorporated were certain discriminating taxes to be levied upon undeveloped land, with an increment duty in cases where the land was sold or a lease was granted.
I would like to remind the House that many municipal authorities have passed resolutions in support of the Motion which I now have the honour of submitting to the House—such as for instance, Hull, Bradford, Coventry, Darlington, Manchester; and in my own native city of Cardiff, which sends three Members to this House to support the Government—which fact I mention as an indication of its political complexion—the resolution was carried with only one dissentient. The principle embodied in this Motion can be carried out without any fundamental change in the Constitution, and I submit that it can be recommended on the two-fold ground of justice and of wisdom. I ask the House to give its assent to this Motion in order to deal adequately with the difficulties of the land system of this country and to give an earnest of their desire that that which belongs to the people shall rightly be restored to the people.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: I beg to second the Motion.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) the other day in this House, when speaking on the land question, said that a pennyworth of practice was worth a pound of theory, and, as I have had the luck, in a somewhat chequered career, to travel in a good many English Colonies, I have looked up a few of those pennyworths of practice, in order, if I can, to point the argument which my hon. Friend has just put forward. Some years ago I was driving in Toronto with a friend, and he showed me the new University buildings. He said, "If I had bought the plot on which those buildings stand what a rich man I should be to-day." I said, "Why did not you?" and he said, "It was not so much the cost of the land as the taxes. I should have had to pay taxes, and I could not see my way to doing so." I said, "In England, if we buy land and do not use it, waiting for it to grow worth more, we do not pay tax." I had the greatest difficulty to convince that wealthy Conservative friend of mine, who was a large business man in Canada, that we in England were such fools. He argued the point. He said, "This land on which the Toronto University is built was growing in value every year. Why should I not pay city taxes? It is the people of the city who are making that land more valuable, and why should I not pay?" I said, "In England directly you use the land and create employment you pay tax on the land and the improvements, but if you were in England so long as you did nothing with this land and the people of Toronto made it more valuable you would not pay at all." That was the practice in Toronto, in Australia, and in New Zealand. It is because of that practice that we are paying millions and millions of pounds to get rid of our men and to send them to these countries where they can make a living. Because of that practice we see the Socialist party 140 strong on those benches. It is one of the reasons, because if this thing for which we have been fighting for so many years had been put into practice the causes which have made Socialists would not have been there. The greatest of those causes is the housing question, and even the Socialists have the glimmerings
of light to see that on the land question depends the housing question.
I will give one or two instances of the injustice of this thing. A friend of mine in Lincolnshire had land on the fen. There was a drainage authority, and we took several hours the other night discussing whether the West Riding County Council should be allowed to levy a drainage rate. My friend was a very good farmer, and had one of the best cultivated farms in Lincolnshire. Across the way of this drain is one of the worst farms in Lincolnshire, and because my friend was a good farmer he was paying four times as much per acre for drainage as his neighbour who was a bad farmer. Surely, if there is any equity at all in this country, the Drainage Tax should have been levied equally on those two farms. They got an equal benefit, but the man who was deprived of a portion of his earnings was the man who was the useful citizen. That, we say, is unjust. You will notice in the underground railways a little bit of elementary economic teaching. Sir Albert Stanley, as he then was, is the great controller of the underground railways, and he sat in the Coalition Government. The underground tell you that they are making the value of London suburbs. They also tell you that the value does not go to the London people. The value that the underground are making, and which incidentally is made by the people who live in those suburbs, is all going to the owners of the land in those suburbs.
I have just time to tell a little parable of my own town. About 60 or 70 years ago there came a humble foreigner of Jewish extraction from Germany. He was a political refugee. He lived and worked in my city and he built up a very large export trade. He used considerable premises to do it. He paid rates, which were growing year by year, particularly in my own town, which has had a good deal of socialistic administration. He paid Income Tax on his earnings. He paid very heavy Excise and Customs duties on his luxuries, and we know that the Jews when they make money like to spend it. He was taxed on his industry at every hand and turn and corner. He started at nothing and finished with a lot. All that time he was paying tax. Just about the same time that he came to Bradford the principal landowner of Bradford succeeded to the
estate. His land at that time was not worth a twentieth of what it is now. He hardly ever came near the town. He did no work for the town. Year by year he sold a little piece at 5s., is., 10s. a square yard for building, and of course only the land that was becoming what they call ripe. I got an acre of land six miles out of the town for £40 an acre, but the poor people in the town had to spend £300 or £400 an acre because they could not afford to go out. Their children must be educated close at home. The difference was this. The useful citizen was taxed, taxed, taxed. The man who did nothing and grew rich while he slept—when the end of his life came Bradford had made for him, without his working at all, far more than the other man had made by a long life of clever toil and financial genius. It is not equity, and because it is not equity all the great municipalities—Glasgow, Manchester, I believe even Liverpool, that home of Toryism—have passed Resolutions in favour of this great reform. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said, long ago, that our present system of taxation and rating is a hostile tariff against building. I was one of the few men in the House who voted against the Housing Bill on the principle that we should not tax the poor to give a subsidy to any trade. If you would untax the buildings, if you would take the rates off improvements and put them upon land values, upon that form of wealth which is created solely by the community, you would want no subsidy. We should have no tinkering or interference by the Minister of Health, or any other Minister, on the housing question, because houses would be built by the people for the people at a price people could pay.

Mr. PETO: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
a satisfactory reform of the present system of local taxation must be arrived at, not by piecemeal and partial treatment, but by such legislation as will secure fair and equitable results to all classes of the community.

Mr. EMLYN JONES: rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld
his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday next.

CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th April].
That the present system of imposing upon the Catholics of England the burden of building their own schools is contrary to religious and economic equality, and that the system of complete educational equality existing in Scotland should, with the necessary changes, be adopted in England."—[Mr. T. P. O'Connor.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would appeal to hon. Members not to object to this Motion. There was a discussion upon it on the last occasion, in which it was made evident that hon. Members of all parties are desirous of meeting the grievance to which it refers.

Sir SYDNEY RUSSELL-WELLS: I would join in the appeal to hon. Members to allow this Motion to go through without objection.

Resolved,
That the present system of imposing upon the Catholics of England the burden of building their own schools is contrary to religious and economic equality, and that the system of complete educational equality existing in Scotland should, with the necessary changes, be adopted in England.

HOUSING, Etc. (No. 2) [MONEY.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on consideration of Resolution.

Question again proposed, "That paragraph (b) stand part of the Resolution."

Mr. WALLHEAD: I wish to draw attention to the inability of the town of Merthyr to meet the obligations imposed on it under this Resolution. The proceeds of a penny rate in Merthyr are roughly £1,000. In the neighbouring city of Cardiff the approximate amount is £6,000. The clearing of slums involves the question of re-housing the people. In
the slums in and about Merthyr a very large number of poorly-paid workers live. I believe that it is an axiom in reference to rent and rates that it is impossible to take from a man's income more than one-sixth in the shape of rent and rates. I think that that is fairly sound so far as the lower-paid workers are concerned. But we have in the borough of Merthyr very large numbers of people whose wages do not amount at present to more than 30s. a week. If these people are to be re-housed under the Bill of the Minister of Health at a minimum rent of 7s. 6d. per week plus rates, with rates at 25s. in the £, it is impossible for the local authority to deal with a problem of that description. Under the penny rate for housing, which would have to be incurred if the slum areas were to be cleared, Cardiff would have to impose for 20 years a halfpenny rate in order to obtain 1,000 houses, and 1½d. rate for the remaining 40 years. Merthyr would, for the same amount of rates—one halfpenny for 20 years, and 1½d. for 40 years—only get 156 houses. At the present time, according to the responsible officials of the Merthyr Corporation, there are required now, in Merthyr, for shim clearance alone, and to replace houses already condemned as unfit for human habitation, at least 801 houses.
I submit to the Minister of Health that this slum question is a product of past years of negligence. This House would not, at the present moment, countenance the creation of slums such as we have now, under any consideration whatever. At long last, we have learnt the folly of crowding people together in the unhealthy areas, under the conditions which now constitute these grave problems which we call the slum problems of our great industrial centres. If the slum problem be the product of the negligence of the past it is not entirely due to the local authorities. It is also due to the negligence of the central Legislative body, which has not even insisted upon local authorities carrying out the laws which have been enacted; laws often, in too many cases, of a permissive instead of a mandatory character. Therefore it must be said that this Legislature bears some responsibility for the state of affairs that exists. Under the conditions I have mentioned, and which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), it becomes profoundly clear that the responsibility is so great that it
can only be met by slum clearance becoming a national question and not a local one. This Bill will not be of the slightest use to many of the localities in South Wales. They will not, and cannot avail themselves of its provisions.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Not anywhere.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Not anywhere in South Wales. They are overburdened, and outside, probably, of one or two of the bigger towns, this Bill will fall dead. It will not do what the Government suggests can be done. The Minister of Health must, if he wants to see his Bill a success, recast the financial provisions, and this paragraph in particular dealing with financial aid for slum clearance. He must come generously to the assistance of these congested areas in South Wales, badly hit by trade depression, and suffering badly from the mistakes of the past, with a scheme that will meet the needs of the time, and will help them to meet their financial burdens in a far more generous way than this Bill does. I support the Amendment, and I hope the appeal we are making, in regard to this question of slum clearance, will be met by the Minister. I believe he wants to do the right thing, if he would dare to be courageous enough. I suggest that he should take his courage in both hands, and tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in order to maintain his own name unsullied as a housing reformer, he must have the assistance he requires in his Office to give to those overburdened localities the undoubted assistance they require.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: The great test of the particular question we are discussing is whether the local authorities are going to act in pursuance of the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. That applies, not only to this particular provision, but to the whole of the housing question, because, until you house the people, you cannot deal with the slums. It would be on this side of the House a sad thing, certainly it would be to the public and certainly to the Government itself, if they produced an Act of Parliament on a matter so important as this which was not acted upon. With regard to the slum areas, the point I desire to make is that, although we are trying by this Bill to transfer the responsibilities
to the localities, it is, in fact, a national problem and a national responsibility. There are Labour Members on my right who come from and represent great industrial centres and they speak of the slums which exist in these centres. They believe I come from and represent a garden city where no slums exist. I am to mention the City of Oxford to show that we are dealing with a national and not with a local question. It is perfectly true that we have in Oxford our Colleges and beautiful parks, but it is also true that in that great city of learning we have slums which are not excelled by any slums in the British Isles, except in point of area. I challenge any Member of this House, from whatever constituency he comes, to produce, except on the point of area, slums which are more pronounced than those in the City of Oxford.
In November last I received an anonymous letter asking me to visit a house in Oxford, which was by no means one of the hovels in a slum area. That house consisted of five rooms, two of which were manifestly unfit for human occupation, and were not used for that purpose, leaving three rooms. There resided on the ground floor a family of seven, sleeping, feeding and living in one room. Of the children, five in number, the eldest was suffering from a disease which prohibited him from entering an elementary school. On the second floor, in another room, was another family of four. The elder boy of two children was immediately removed to a sanatorium for tuberculosis, and in the remaining room was one person. In three rooms, 12 persons were living.
This very month there will be passing from Christ Church, Oxford, the prettiest girls in the land and the most beautiful, and we shall be very pleased to see them, but they will pass down an avenue of courts and alleys containing hovels which cannot be reproduced, as I believe—and I have investigated to ascertain—in any of the industrial centres of this land. We are proposing to pass on a national obligation to local authorities, and we hope that they will shoulder this further responsibility. If we are sincere and intend that this national disgrace shall be removed, then let us make a provision which we have reasonable expectation will be acted upon by the
local authorities. If we are not sincere, do not let us introduce into a Bill yet a further provision for removing this evil, when we know perfectly well that it cannot and will not be remedied in such a way.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member who has just spoken has suggested that the provision in the Bill to which this part of the Resolution refers is likely to produce no result whatever. He says, "Do not let us put into the Bill a provision that pretends to deal with the question when we know that it is not going to have any such result as that which we suggest." I cannot but think that he must be completely ignorant of the real facts of the situation. Under the provisions of the Bill we have already made arrangements with quite a number of local authorities, some of the largest towns in the country, under which a very considerable number of schemes will be put in hand. The hon. Member said that this was a national undertaking. I would accept that dictum with a qualification. If it is meant by that that it is an obligation in which the local authority does not share at all, I should contest it most vigorously. It is an obligation with the local authority, and it would be absurd to say that local authorities which have neglected their duty in the past should be in future relieved from the national Exchequer at the expense of those local authorities which have done their duty. But once again I have to say that the provision in this Bill does not pretend to be a solution of the slum question. I say that no provision in any Bill which could be introduced at this moment could be a solution of the slum question. I will state the reason. Because the problem is much too big to be solved simultaneously with the provision of the new houses required. You have not the labour or resources in the country to deal with these two things at the same time, completely and wholly. You have to work hand in hand. You have gradually to build up your schemes for dealing with this question. The slum problem can be dealt with only in a partial manner until there are sufficient houses to accommodate the people displaced. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) complained that a fabulous price would have to be paid for the land in these slum clearances. That fabulous
prices have been paid in the past I agree, but I do not think we need look forward to a repetition of some of the things that have happened in the past and which certainly have discouraged local authorities in undertaking slum clearances. New Acts have been passed. There is on the Statute Book an Act under which the old system by which land is valued for the purpose of slum clearances, has undergone an entirely new development. The Section of the Act of 1919 is one which determines the value of the site as the value of the cleared site, without any value whatsoever for the buildings upon it. I do not think that it can be contended any longer that it will be necessary to pay fabulous sums for slum clearances.

Mr. MacLAREN: On the basis of valuation, when these slums are removed the value of the site has increased.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That may be so in some cases. If you put together a large number of small areas, each of which has a certain value, it is quite true that in some cases the aggregate value of the whole is greater than the value of the individual areas before. The hon. Member will recollect that there is also a provision in the Act, under which the value of the land is again reduced according to the use for which it is intended, and that also will tend to a reduction in the price. I would say generally upon the subject, that the improvement of the slum areas, and doing away with the awful conditions which prevail in many large towns, is a subject which I have very much at heart. I have given a good deal of attention to it in the past. I have visited slums in most of the large towns and I am familiar with what exists in London, Liverpool, and Leeds—and Merthyr Tydvil, too, because I have been there and I have seen the slums there.

Mr. JAMES STEWART: And Glasgow?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I have seen Glasgow and Edinburgh, too.

Mr. STEWART: Glasgow has the prize slums.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I agree. I do not think I have seen anything to equal what there is in Glasgow. I do not carry in my head the number of back-to-back houses in
London, but I know in Birmingham alone we have 40,000 back-to-back houses and in Leeds there are 70,000 back-to-back houses. In the large towns there are enormous numbers of houses which ought to be pulled down, if we could only see how to provide alternative accommodation. It is not an easy problem. You have to consider, apart from the making of improvements, what you are going to do with the population which you turn out. It is all very well to talk about everybody living in a nice house out in the country, with a garden and all the amenities of a garden suburb. If you talk to these people, you find in many cases that they do not want to leave the locality. It is convenient for them, they are near their work, they have their friends there, they are within reach of such amusements as they are able to take, and they do not wish, in many cases, to go any distance away from the place in which they have been accustomed to live, because it involves an increased cost to them in tram fares. Yet, you cannot house them again on the same site because the density would be too great. There is no way of putting the population back again upon the same site unless you are prepared to build blocks of flats of great height—as to which, my own opinion is that such buildings are not very suitable for the working class. As I have said, the subject is one which I have studied carefully, and I have some ideas as to the way in which the matter might be approached, but I have not had time to work them out or put them in the form of a Bill. I look upon this scheme as a contribution towards the subject. I believe it is all that is possible at the moment, but I look forward to the time when the progress of other provisions in the Bill and other machinery set in motion by the Bill, will give some sort of a reserve of houses so that we may be able to tackle the subject on a larger scale. Then, I hope, we may be able to really set about a scheme which will, in the long run, solve our problem.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the type of house which he proposes to erect for the people he is going to dispossess?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not proposing to erect any type of house. It is a matter for the local authority.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Do you not intend to lay down some standard to guide the local authority as in the other part of the Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to the hon. Member for reminding me. That was a point he made in his speech, which escaped my attention. No, I do not. I propose to leave it entirely to the local authorities. It is true that the local authorities have to obtain my approval of the proposals that they make, but I think really one must leave this to the local authorities, who have greater knowledge of the needs of the districts than we can profess to have in Whitehall, and whilst I hope they will maintain as high a standard as possible, I think that is a matter which ought to be left, and must be left, to their discretion.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: In regard to this half-and-half arrangement, which the Minister proposes for slum clearances, he does not tell us that the provision of a percentage makes it necessary to construct a large Department at the Ministry of Health, and why the objection should hold against a subsidy for building the other houses and not against a subsidy for slum clearances has not been made quite clear. The second point I wish to ask about is this: I presume this money is available for rural and urban authorities, that it is for the authorities under Part III of the Act of 1890. The third point is this: The Minister spoke as if people liked to live near their work, and among their friends. I was Member for 13 years for the district of St. George's in the East, which is about as bad a slum area as there is anywhere in London, and the effect of providing cheaper means of transit by municipal trams, a Socialistic experiment, was to make available for those people in hundreds facilities for living amongst some of those amenities which the Minister described They had not lived there before, because they could not afford to go out to those districts, but as soon as there were facilities provided they went, and therefore I think it is looking at it through too rosy spectacles to represent these people as being willing, not to say desirous, of living in these conditions in which they work. It is a very poignant side of the housing question, and I should like to read a passage from a statement of the late Minister of Health, Dr. Addison,
on the subject of slums. Dr. Addison said, with regard to tuberculosis:
An inquiry was made in some London boroughs as to the home conditions of those who came to the dispensaries. In one borough, only 86 out of 482 consumptive patients had a bedroom to themselves; in another case, only 134 cases out of 766 had a bedroom to themselves; and 453 of the remainder shared a bed with one or more members of their family.
That is a very shocking condition of affairs, and nothing ought to prevent us doing everything in our power to remove it, whatever the cost may be. That brings me to my last point. The Minister reverts in this Bill to the 50–50 arrangement of the 1919 Act. Between the two arrangements there was a grant of £200,000 by the Exchequer, of which Scotland received £30,000, for districts which include the city where, as the Minister of Health stated, they have the prize slums, but I observe in the White Paper that has been issued that the Minister anticipates that for this year only £230,000 will be required under this Section of the Bill. Is that so? If this is such an advance on the intermediate stage, if it really is giving the assistance which the 1919 Act purported to give, why does he say that only £230,000 will be required, and if that is the extent of the liability, are we in Scotland going to get only £30,000 of that sum?
If the Minister says—and I beg him to explain the matter—that is really the limit of his contribution, I shall not have the least hesitation in voting against this Sub-section; but if he says it means, what it appears to mean, namely, that the Treasury will pay the deficit of the local authorities, then, as far as I am concerned, I shall not go into the Lobby against it.

Mr. J. STEWART: The Minister of Health, in the course of his remarks, said he did not intend that slum clearances should take place at once, and that they would have to build houses for the people before these clearances came along. He also said that the authorities were to be allowed to build whatever kind of houses they cared to build. He further said that he deprecated the building of these huge blocks of tenements as not being good enough for the working-class, and he desired that a different type of house should be erected
for them. If that be so, when are the slum clearances likely to begin? He has admitted that in Birmingham, Glasgow and other places the problem is almost impossible of ever being dealt with, owing to the neglect of our predecessors. It has grown to such magnitude that there cannot be hope of dealing with it in the immediate future. Glasgow has been dealing with the subject since 1864, when it got a special Act of Parliament giving it the power to wipe out some of it. To provide a very few thousand houses it cost millions of pounds. For these clearances we in Glasgow were burdened for many years with a rate of 6d. in the £, and to-day the problem is still as great as ever. We hear it said that the cost of the ground will not be very great, but let me point out that immediately prior to the War we had under consideration, under the 1909 Act, the making of clearances in connection with our slums, and we bought a piece of ground on the south side of the river in what is known as the Kingston area. We paid over £2 per square yard for the ground, and wherever we buy land, even wiping out the value of the houses altogether in these slum areas, it is not going to be bought at less than £1 a yard. That means for each acre £4,800—practically £5,000. Now you are going to give us half the money, but that will not enable even such a wealthy corporation as ours, where a rate of a penny in the £ produces the sum of £40,000, to deal with this problem. As sure as we are sitting here at this moment there will be a public outcry against the increase of the rates. Public opinion will not be content to provide houses to be let at less than an economic rent, subsidised to a great extent by a class of people who are continually in the grip of poverty, and we are going to see a small section get a better house than we can afford to build to pay an economic rent. If you are going to deal with this question from the point of view that you, I believe, desire to deal with it, both health and physical, and for mental and moral results, you must be prepared to find more money than you are going to do. Liverpool has spent a great deal of money in clearing slum areas, with some good results. It may be that you are not prepared to go in and support a scheme such as Liverpool. If you, Sir, had the power you would exercise it in some degree
perhaps in preventing the perpetuation of these huge Scottish tenements, as they are called, in Liverpool; you would demand something better. You have been particularly interested in the Housing Scheme; at the same time in the Bill there is no likelihood of us carrying out this Scheme.
Glasgow at the moment is building houses to take the place of slum areas, and the city has received the sanction of the Health Ministry for the building of round about 1,000 houses. What are they going to do? Put up two-apartment houses in three-flated tenement, not because it is their ideal, but because of the economic position. You are giving to Scotland £30,000 this year, of which Glasgow will get £6,000 or £7,000 towards dealing with this problem, a problem which in itself will take many thousands. We appeal to you, not in the interests of ourselves but in the interests of those whose interests, some of us believe, you have just as much at heart as many of us on this side, to make it possible for us to wipe out what you are content to describe as a blot on our civilisation! Give us more money. We will not waste it. We will spend it so as to reduce the expenditure of the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Health, and in other directions equally beneficial, in endeavouring to get rid of tuberculosis, which is killing tens of thousands, and so on. We ask you to try to meet us not on behalf of any party in this House, but on behalf of those unfortunate people who are unable to get out of these conditions. We ask you to reconsider the question because we must try to do something—and at least if you cannot—give us what you ought to do, give us something better than what you are proposing to do now.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I desire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—to ask the Minister of Health—and I will only be a moment—quite a definite question. The Resolution refers to a grant of £230,000. Is it the assumption that we cannot get anything further than that?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I am anxious to make the point quite clear. This is a bargain with the authorities, and on the paro of Scotland, by which we hope that there may be some slum
clearances. Of the £230,000, £30,000 goes to Scotland. We recognise that in all these things one has to strike a balance between the amount of money to be divided on what I may call sanitary measures, and the money which has to be devoted to the building of new houses. When we determined to make a start by making a direct attack upon slum property we agreed with what the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said on this point, namely, that the ideal method of attacking slum property is to build good houses to enable the population to flow into them and leave the bad houses vacant so that they can be pulled down. In this matter we had to consider the building machinery at our disposal and the grant was chosen on the representative idea. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) asked me a question as to what conditions limited the amount to be spent. The sum which I have mentioned was chosen because it seemed to us and to the local authorities to represent the amount of slum clearances which they could really expect to get through within the next couple of years.

Captain BENN: Do the Government mean to pay one-half of what the local authorities agree to spend, or are they limited to £230,000?

Captain ELLIOT: We pay one half of the sum which the local authorities spend up to £230,000. This allocation has been made as the result of a very careful inquiry into the amount of building we can get through in that period, because we can only get a certain amount of work done in a certain time.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Was there not an allocation of £30,000 to Scotland made under the late Government before you considered this Bill at all?

Captain ELLIOT: I was at the conference as Parliamentary Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health when the allocation was first considered and subsequently made, and I have no such recollection. This allocation was made on an estimate which had relation to the amount of work which could be got through in the two years immediately before us, and we estimated 6,000 houses for that period as being very near the limit of the output of the building
machinery in Scotland. By that I do not mean merely the trusts and the rings, but the building machinery in which labour plays a very important and indeed a determining part.

Mr. WHEATLEY: You will soon have no machine.

Captain ELLIOT: That is a point which is not worthy of the deep knowledge which the hon. Member has of this subject. We are certainly increasing the provision for the output of houses in the hope that a condition of things will arise under which we shall get a larger output than we have before, for, unless we can secure that, we shall never catch up the problem at all. Let me recapitulate. The sum of £230,000 a year was laid aside for slum clearance, and a provisional allocation of that sum has been made, with the enthusiastic co-operation of the local authorities, who, so far from saying that they would be unable to operate this scheme, have begged us to co-operate with them on a 50–50 basis as far as possible. We have got ahead with this scheme, and, not merely in the great cities, but as far north as Kirkwall and running down to the south to small authorities like Easter Anstruther, we have been able to secure the whole-hearted co-operation of the local authorities. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some local authorities!"] I do not wish to weary the House, but I have the list here of the local authorities who have come in with us under this scheme. Of course we have Edinburgh in the scheme, and there are authorities like Leven, Lochgelly, Port Glasgow—I am not going to read them all.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Not in Lanarkshire?

Captain ELLIOT: Of course, we have Lanarkshire in. Does anyone suppose that Lanarkshire is left out? Lanarkshire is very anxious to get ahead with this scheme, and, if it can see its way, to have it extended. Edinburgh and Glasgow are in the same condition.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Dumbarton and Clydebank is not.

Captain ELLIOT: I do not wish to read great numbers of names, but both Eastern and Western Dumbarton figure in this list.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is only the county. It is not the Burgh of Dumbarton and Clydebank.

Captain ELLIOT: I wish to say again that this sum was devoted to slum clearance as a compromise. That compromise represents what it is considered that the local authorities can deal with as an immediate attack on the sanitary problem in the time. We have decided that the sum shall be £230,000 a year, and are dealing with the problem for the next two years on that basis. When we have dealt with this sum, which is now being allocated, then will be the time to review the situation and see if further steps are necessary, and, if so, on what basis the programme should be extended.

Captain BERKELEY: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The point that the hon. and gallant Member wishes to put would not be in order on this Amendment. We must dispose of that first.

Mr. FALCONER: May I ask a question? It is a question which has been put to me by several people, and I should like to have it cleared up. I desire to ask whether, under this Clause, grants and contributions can be made for schemes for rehousing in villages? The suggestion has been made to me—I have not had time to verify it—that the principal Act applies to rehousing in towns, and I am merely asking whether it is quite clear, or whether, if it is not, it will be made quite clear, that contributions can be made to villages in country areas, where sometimes there are slums?

Captain ELLIOT: Yes, I have given the case of Easter Anstruther, which is not by any means a town, but a very small local authority.

Question put, "That paragraph (b) stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 106.

Division No. 125.]
AYES.
[11.52 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Darblshire, C. W.
Hinds, John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Banks, Mitchell
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hudson, Capt. A.


Barnston, Mayor Harry
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hughes, Collingwood


Bell, Lieut-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Ednam, Viscount
Hume, G. H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Ellis, R. G.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
England, Lieut-Colonel A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Berry, Sir George
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Jephcott, A. R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Blundell, F. N.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Brass, Captain W.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas


Briggs, Harold
Furness, G. J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brittain, Sir Harry
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lamb, J. Q.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Garland, C. S.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Gates, Percy
Lorimer, H. D.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lort-Williams, J.


Bruford, R.
Gould, James C.
Lougher, L.


Bruton, Sir James
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Lumley, L. R.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gretton, Colonel John
Manville, Edward


Button, H. S.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Chapman, Sir S.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Clarry, Reginald George
Halstead, Major D.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Clayton, G. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Murchison, C. K.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Harrison, F. C.
Nall, Major Joseph


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Harvey, Major S. E.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hawke, John Anthony
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cope, Major William
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tubbs, S. W.


Nield, Sir Herbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Paget, T. G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Wallace, Captain E.


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sandon, Lord
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Penny, Frederick George
Shepperson, E. W.
Waring, Major Walter


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shipwright, Captain D.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Perring, William George
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Peto, Basil E.
Singleton, J. E.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Pielou, D. P.
Skelton, A. N.
Whitla, Sir William


Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Privett, F. J.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Raeburn, Sir William H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Earl


Raine, W.
Sparkes, H. W.
Wise, Frederick


Rentoul, G. S.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Wolmer, Viscount


Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.



Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Russell, William (Bolton)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Gibbs.


Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



NOES.


Adams, D.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harbord, Arthur
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Phillipps, Vivian


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Ponsonby, Arthur


Batey, Joseph
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Potts, John S.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Pringle, W. M. R.


Bonwick, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Ritson, J.


Bowdler, W. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Herriotts, J.
Saklatvala, S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hill, A.
Salter, Dr. A.


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simpson, J. Hope


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Charleton, H. C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Sullivan, J.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawson, John James
Tout, W. J.


Duncan, C.
Leach, W.
Warne, G. H.


Dunnico, H.
Linfield, F. C.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Westwood, J.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
M'Entee, V. L.
Wheatley, J.


Fairbairn, R. R.
McLaren, Andrew
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Falconer, J.
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Foot, Isaac
Millar, J. D.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gosling, Harry
Morel, E. D.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wintringham, Margaret


Greenall, T.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Nichol Robert



Groves, T.
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Morgan


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.
Jones.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parker, H. (Hanley)



Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

12 M.

Captain BERKELEY: I rise to put a question suggested to me by an important section of my constituency. It relates to paragraph (a) of this Resolution. It has been suggested that perhaps the Minister might consider making provision for allowing local authorities to draw a capital sum equal to the present value. It has been represented that it would be
a far greater incentive to the private builder to encourage him to erect these houses if he could be offered a lump sum by the local authority in respect of this subsidy, and in view of the fact that under a section of the Bill power is given to the local authority to make a grant for advances in respect of the work. I submit that it is hardly fair that the authority should have the onus of putting up a capital sum. I ask whether it is possible to make provision, under this Resolution, to allow the
authority, in lieu of having the annual payment of £6, to draw the capital value of that sum?

Mr. NICHOL: A doubt has arisen in the minds of some of the local authorities as to the words "not exceeding." The point is as to whether this is the usual form of words or whether it is possible, as has been suggested by some local authorities, that "not exceeding 20 years" may mean that the subsidy will run for a shorter period, at the will of the Minister; and the same point refers with the £6.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that I can answer these two questions in a few sentences. On the first question there is no discrimination against a local authority. All that they have to do is to raise a loan of the requisite amount, and use the subsidy in payment of that loan. In reference to the second point the words "not exceeding" are intended to cover one particular case which had occurred to me. It might be conceivable that a private builder might be willing to build houses for a subsidy purely not only any contribution from the local authority but even for less than £6, in which case I desire to ensure that the contribution from the Exchequer shall be the amount required by the private builder and no more, but I intend to move an Amendment
in Committee to make that point clear.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Just one question. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may jeer—

Mr. SPEAKER: I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should put his question.

Mr. THOMSON: I wish to ask whether the subsidy in this Resolution applies to the re-housing in rural districts, under Part I and Part II of the 1890 Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.